Amid rising political polarization, censorship, and institutional control, echoes of history’s most dangerous ideologies—communism and fascism—can be felt in unexpected places, including the modern progressive movement. What lessons from the past must we urgently heed?
Introduction
In modern discourse, communism and fascism are often portrayed as polar opposites—one rooted in radical collectivism, the other in extreme nationalism. Yet, these totalitarian ideologies share key features that distinguish them from classical liberal values, particularly those enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Even more striking is the ideological convergence between these systems and contemporary progressivism, which exhibits troubling tendencies toward centralized control and social engineering. Understanding these parallels offers a critical lens through which to evaluate the trajectory of political ideologies in the post-liberal era.
Key Similarities Between Communism and Fascism
Despite their surface differences, communism and fascism share profound similarities in their structures, goals, and methods of governance. These similarities highlight their shared rejection of classical liberal principles and constitutional values, making them distinct from the freedoms enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
1. Economic and Political Control
Centralized Economic Control:
Communism abolishes private property entirely, placing all means of production under direct state ownership to achieve class equality. Fascism, while allowing nominal private ownership, achieves nearly identical outcomes by exercising complete control over industries, subordinating them to state objectives through stringent regulation. In practice, the distinction is more one of form than function: communism owns the means of production outright, while fascism controls it with such dominance that private ownership becomes a formality. Both systems eliminate true economic freedom and autonomy, centralizing economic power in the hands of the state.
Massive Administrative States:
Both communism and fascism rely on sprawling bureaucratic apparatuses to maintain their grip on society. In communism, the state directly owns and operates industries, requiring vast administrative hierarchies to manage production quotas, allocate resources, and control distribution. This centralized system is notorious for inefficiency, corruption, and rigidity, as bureaucrats struggle to micromanage the complexities of an entire economy without market-driven feedback mechanisms.
Fascism, while allowing nominal private ownership, achieves similar outcomes through extensive regulation and coordination of industries. Corporations are subordinated to state objectives, with government officials dictating production priorities, pricing, labor practices, and even innovation. This system necessitates a vast network of bureaucrats to oversee compliance, enforce state mandates, and resolve disputes between private entities and government authorities.
In both systems, the bureaucracy becomes a powerful tool of control, ensuring that economic activity aligns with ideological and political goals. These administrative structures are also used to monitor and suppress dissent, as economic control extends naturally into social and cultural regulation. The result is a society in which individual and entrepreneurial freedom is crushed under the weight of state planning and oversight, leaving citizens dependent on and subservient to the ruling elite.
Neither Hitler nor Stalin could have achieved their totalitarian control and their respective regimes' horrific outcomes without the extensive bureaucratic machinery that underpinned their power. (Read more here)
Opposition to Free Markets:
Both ideologies reject laissez-faire capitalism, replacing it with either outright state ownership (communism) or state-directed corporatism (fascism).
Redistribution of Wealth:
Both advocate for the redistribution of wealth, albeit for different goals—communism to achieve class equality, and fascism to strengthen the state and foster loyalty.
2. Rejection of Individual Rights
Suppression of Freedom of Speech:
Both systems view free expression as a threat and impose strict censorship to ensure ideological conformity.
Opposition to Religious Liberty:
Communism and fascism both suppress religious freedom but do so in distinct ways that converge on the same goal: subordinating religion to the authority of the state. Communism, in its purest form, views religion as a threat to ideological supremacy, often banning religious practices outright or severely restricting them. This was evident in early Soviet and Maoist policies, which sought to eradicate religion by closing churches, persecuting clergy, and promoting atheism as state doctrine. However, modern communist regimes, such as China, outwardly allow certain forms of religion, but only under strict state control. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) regulates religious activity through structures like the Three-Self Patriotic Church for Protestants and similar state-approved organizations for other faiths, ensuring that religious expression aligns with party interests. At the same time, the CCP works to undermine genuine religious belief by indoctrinating children with atheistic values and, in some cases, requiring them to vow never to believe in God. Fascism similarly subordinates religion, not by eradicating it, but by co-opting religious institutions to serve the state’s ideological agenda. Both systems recognize that religion represents a competing source of moral and social authority, and they suppress or manipulate it to ensure their total control over society.
Abolition of Private Gun Ownership:
Both regimes disarm the population to prevent resistance, consolidating state power over armed force.
3. Totalitarian Governance
One-Party Rule:
Both systems operate under a single dominant party, eliminating political pluralism and consolidating power in the hands of a small elite. This ensures no competition to their authority, often suppressing or outlawing opposition parties altogether.
Weaponization of the Legal System:
Communist and fascist regimes frequently use the legal system to neutralize political opponents, presenting their actions as lawful while undermining justice. Courts are transformed into tools of the regime, leveling trumped-up charges, engaging in character assassination, and waging “lawfare” to silence dissent. In Stalin’s Soviet Union, show trials publicly condemned supposed enemies of the state, often leading to executions or exile. Similarly, Nazi Germany manipulated its judiciary to imprison political opponents and outlaw opposition parties entirely, as seen with the Enabling Act of 1933. The result is a climate of fear and compliance, where political resistance is criminalized, and any remaining dissenting voices are silenced through the courts.
Opposition to Separation of Powers:
Both reject constitutional checks and balances, centralizing authority in an unchecked executive or party apparatus.
Militarization of Society:
Militarism plays a role in both systems—communism uses it for global revolution, and fascism glorifies it as an extension of the state’s supremacy.
4. Social Engineering and Cultural Control
Mandatory Ideological Conformity:
Both systems demand loyalty to their ideology, enforced through propaganda, re-education, and public shaming of dissenters.
Control of Education:
Schools are used to indoctrinate youth, fostering unwavering loyalty to the regime’s values and creating future ideologues.
Infiltration of Institutions:
Both ideologies place loyal operatives in key institutions—media, corporations, and universities—to extend their influence.
Censorship and Thought Control:
Whether through state-run media (communism) or coordinated narratives (fascism), both ideologies suppress alternative viewpoints.
Control of Cultural Expression:
Art, literature, and entertainment are subordinated to serve ideological goals, suppressing creativity and dissent.
5. Creation of Social Enemies
Dehumanization of Opponents:
Both ideologies target specific groups as enemies—bourgeoisie and capitalists (communism), or racial and ethnic minorities (fascism)—to justify oppression and violence.
Promotion of Class or Group Division:
Both systems encourage class conflict (communism) or national and racial superiority (fascism) to consolidate their base and justify authoritarian measures.
6. Utopian Aspirations
Promises of a Perfect Society:
Both ideologies offer a vision of an ideal society—classless equality (communism) or national unity and purity (fascism)—to justify extreme measures.
Rejection of Incremental Reform:
Both demand radical societal transformation, dismissing incremental change as insufficient.
7. Concentration of Power and Wealth in the State
Centralization of Wealth:
Both ideologies concentrate resources in the hands of the state to eliminate private competition and fund their programs.
Economic Coercion:
State control of resources enables coercion by threatening livelihoods for those who dissent.
8. Surveillance and Control
Mass Surveillance:
Both systems monitor citizens extensively to prevent dissent and enforce compliance.
Police State Tactics:
Fear and intimidation, through secret police or public trials, ensure loyalty and suppress rebellion.
By exploring these points of similarity, the shared DNA of communism and fascism becomes clear. These systems are not ideological opposites but parallel responses to the challenges of modernity, each employing authoritarian tools to reshape society. Their overlap provides a stark contrast to the constitutional principles of freedom, limited government, and individual rights.
Modern Progressivism: A Post-Liberal Trajectory
While progressivism differs from communism and fascism in its stated goals, it increasingly exhibits post-liberal tendencies that align with totalitarian methods. Like these historical ideologies, progressivism seeks to reshape society through centralized control, cultural dominance, and the suppression of dissent, echoing the tools and tactics of authoritarian systems. Its defining features include:
Centralized Control Through Institutions
Progressivism consolidates power by leveraging institutions—government agencies, academia, media, and corporate entities—to enforce ideological conformity. Programs such as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and mandatory ideological training in workplaces reflect a deliberate effort to reshape society from the top down. These initiatives create a culture where dissent is punished and individuals are forced to conform to a prescribed worldview, mirroring the bureaucratic enforcement mechanisms of communism and fascism.
Suppression of Dissent
Progressivism relies on the collaboration of public and private entities, such as big tech and government regulators, to censor opposing viewpoints under the guise of combating "misinformation." This partnership mirrors the totalitarian practice of controlling the flow of information to silence dissent and eliminate competing ideas. Much like Stalin’s show trials or Nazi propaganda campaigns, this erosion of free speech leads to a climate of fear, compliance, and enforced ideological conformity.
Social Engineering
Education, corporate policies, and media narratives are tools progressivism uses to advance a specific worldview, not merely to influence behavior but to redefine cultural norms. In schools, curricula prioritize activism over knowledge, fostering loyalty to progressive ideals in a manner akin to the indoctrination tactics of totalitarian regimes. Similarly, corporate policies enforce ideological compliance among employees, ensuring that workplaces reflect the values of the ruling ideology. These methods resemble the social engineering efforts of communism and fascism, where personal beliefs and behaviors were molded to align with the state's objectives.
While progressivism lacks fascism’s overt nationalism or militarism and communism’s explicit goal of class abolition, its methods—rooted in centralization, ideological enforcement, and cultural domination—mirror those seen in totalitarian regimes. These parallels are not coincidental but stem from the same drive to create an idealized society, even at the expense of individual liberties.
Ideological Convergence: Progressivism’s Parallels with Totalitarianism
The ideological parallels between progressivism and totalitarian systems like communism and fascism reveal a broader shift toward collectivism in a post-liberal context. This convergence is not rooted in identical goals but in shared methods of control, coercion, and suppression of dissent, all of which reject the constitutional principles of individual liberty and limited government. Key areas of convergence include:
Opposition to Classical Liberalism
Progressivism increasingly challenges foundational freedoms—free speech, religious liberty, and the right to dissent—when those freedoms conflict with its ideological aims. Like communism and fascism, progressivism views these rights not as safeguards of liberty but as obstacles to achieving its vision of social justice or equity. This disdain for liberal democracy parallels the authoritarian impulses of Stalin’s Soviet Union and Mussolini’s Italy, where individual rights were subjugated to the needs of the collective or the state.
Control Without Ownership
Much like fascism, progressivism retains the facade of private ownership while exerting overwhelming influence through regulatory frameworks and cultural pressure. Corporations align with progressive goals not out of voluntary agreement but under the threat of public backlash, financial penalties, or government scrutiny. This dynamic mirrors fascism’s corporatist model, where industries remained nominally private but operated under the state’s directives, effectively subordinating private enterprise to ideological objectives.
The Illusion of Inclusivity
Despite its rhetoric of inclusivity, progressivism enforces strict ideological conformity. Those who fail to adhere to progressive orthodoxy are marginalized, canceled, or driven out of public life, creating an environment that mirrors the exclusionary practices of totalitarian regimes. As in communism and fascism, dissenters are not merely disagreed with—they are vilified as enemies of progress, justice, or the collective good. This false inclusivity serves to consolidate power, leaving no room for alternative viewpoints.
Conclusion: A Departure from Constitutional Principles
This ideological convergence reflects a broader departure from the constitutional principles of individual autonomy, free markets, and limited government that have historically defined the American political system. Like communism and fascism, progressivism prioritizes collective goals over individual freedoms, employing centralized control, social engineering, and suppression of dissent to reshape society. The result is not the pursuit of justice but the erosion of liberty, a trajectory that echoes the darkest chapters of the 20th century.
----
Answering Counterarguments: "But Progressivism’s Goals Are Fundamentally Different"