5 Qualities of Fascism: Is the US Anywhere Close?
There is one specific condition for fascism to take hold in the United States.
The word "fascism" is a favorite insult for many, especially in light of the current political climate. If you aren’t already calling them Hitler, tying whoever you oppose to fascism is a great hyperbolic second. Most of the time, however, the word is not used correctly, ignoring historical precedent and the specific conditions that need to exist for a country to go fascist.
Fascists originally hail from Italy, where Mussolini founded the National Fascist Party in 1919-1921, on the heels of World War I. In fact, the word “fascism” comes from "fasces" or "fascio littorio" - a bunch of rods tied around an axe, an ancient Roman symbol of the magistrate's authority, which could be used for corporal and capital punishment.
Fascio Littorio
What needs to happen in a country for it to become fascist?
1. Fascism thrives in militaristic societies. World War I caused a tremendous militarization of a number of countries. Nations like Italy and Germany saw the need to be able to quickly mobilize millions of people to fight wars and provide economic support.
2. Fascists reject liberal democracy, which is basically a representative kind of government where elections are free and competitive, powers between different government branches are separated, and people have more or less equal rights, freedoms and protections under the law.
3. Fascists, on the other hand, prefer totalitarian one-party rule, led by a strong leader (your favorite dictator). This allows the fascist country to have unparalleled national unity of purpose, a very ordered society, generally ready for armed conflict. Such a society is also poised to respond quickly to economic measures, especially in time of difficulties. A fascist country will likely isolate itself, blaming the international economic order for its troubles.
Mussolini and Hitler
4. What is important to note is that many scholars do not regard fascism to be a solely right-wing or left-wing affliction. It may have elements of both sides of the spectrum. Mussolini himself described fascism as a movement that would strike "against the backwardness of the right and the destructiveness of the left".
According to the British historian Roger Griffin, fascist societies of the 20th century also exhibited such components as "a rebirth myth, populist ultra-nationalism and the myth of decadence." Essentially, fascism promises that radical, nationalist politics will pull a nation out of decadence into a period of renewal.
Coming on the heels of the military and economic humiliation suffered by Germany in World War I, followed by the hedonism of the Weimar Republic, one can imagine the appeal held by the narrative that Germans were actually a nation of superior Aryan people, with supposed ancient roots. All they needed to do was to weed out the members of society that caused their country to rot from the inside, and they were sure to assume their rightful place as the leaders of the world.
German Nazi activist Horst Wessel (1907 - 1930, left) at the head of a parade of S.A. stormtroopers, or 'brownshirts', in Nuremberg, Germany, 1929. This photo is from a series of collectable images published in Germany during the Nazi period, entitled 'Deutschland Erwacht' (Germany Awakes). (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)
Can fascism come back to Europe in this day and age? Certainly, there are a number of European ultra-nationalist parties that made significant political gains, often sporting racist, anti-semitic, anti-immigrant, and isolationist agendas. These include the National Front in France, Jobbik Party in Hungary, Golden Dawn in Greece, and the Freedom Party in Austria, whose candidate Norbert Hofer is in position to become the country’s President in the current elections.

Here’s a chart that shows the rise of ultra-nationalist politics across Europe:

What about the United States? What would it take for the great bastion of democracy to turn to the dark side? Some feel anxiety listening to the promise to make America great again, which clearly states a need for rebirth so America could attain its lost mythological status. Others are getting ready for a tyrannical government, which would take away their guns and money and abolish their religion. While both parties often invoke fascism in partisan name-calling, the strong position of the state within fascism would go against the grain of the American Republican party, while the social restrictions would be anathema to the Democrats. Fascism is likely the ultimate "outsider" dogma.
Can an outsider channel the anger felt by millions at the supposed failings of the “establishment” and proclaim himself or herself the one authority on all national decisions? It’s hard to fathom the possibility of checks and balances built into the American government to be so easily circumventable. But there is one way that fascism can take hold in the U.S.
5. The ultimate circumstance when people are willing to give up on their ideals is being in a state of great fear for their safety.
This fear has not yet reached its peak and hopefully never will. Scenarios under which some form of fascism could infect the US would include a cataclysmic world war or perhaps more likely - a much more serious terrorist event, like an attack with a nuclear weapon. This could be followed by a severe economic downturn like the Great Depression, and then people might be willing to give up their rights to a strongman.
Thankfully, these conditions are not present in our current world, and we have to hope and work hard so that our institutions can withstand even the gravest threats. Right now, it seems impossible that the kind of militarization, total control of mass media, and social homogeneity fascism requires would ever come to exist in the United States. Still, never say never. History often moves quicker than we can grasp.
Do newspaper presidential endorsements matter anymore?
Lots of newspapers endorse candidates, but why? Does it actually help?
- Lots of newspapers endorse presidential candidates, but the practice has been questioned in recent years.
- Perceived bias is a big part of the recent decline of trust in media.
- One study found endorsements can change people's minds, but only under certain circumstances.
Yale scientists restore brain function to 32 clinically dead pigs
Researchers hope the technology will further our understanding of the brain, but lawmakers may not be ready for the ethical challenges.
- Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine successfully restored some functions to pig brains that had been dead for hours.
- They hope the technology will advance our understanding of the brain, potentially developing new treatments for debilitating diseases and disorders.
- The research raises many ethical questions and puts to the test our current understanding of death.
The image of an undead brain coming back to live again is the stuff of science fiction. Not just any science fiction, specifically B-grade sci fi. What instantly springs to mind is the black-and-white horrors of films like Fiend Without a Face. Bad acting. Plastic monstrosities. Visible strings. And a spinal cord that, for some reason, is also a tentacle?
But like any good science fiction, it's only a matter of time before some manner of it seeps into our reality. This week's Nature published the findings of researchers who managed to restore function to pigs' brains that were clinically dead. At least, what we once thought of as dead.
What's dead may never die, it seems
The researchers did not hail from House Greyjoy — "What is dead may never die" — but came largely from the Yale School of Medicine. They connected 32 pig brains to a system called BrainEx. BrainEx is an artificial perfusion system — that is, a system that takes over the functions normally regulated by the organ. The pigs had been killed four hours earlier at a U.S. Department of Agriculture slaughterhouse; their brains completely removed from the skulls.
BrainEx pumped an experiment solution into the brain that essentially mimic blood flow. It brought oxygen and nutrients to the tissues, giving brain cells the resources to begin many normal functions. The cells began consuming and metabolizing sugars. The brains' immune systems kicked in. Neuron samples could carry an electrical signal. Some brain cells even responded to drugs.
The researchers have managed to keep some brains alive for up to 36 hours, and currently do not know if BrainEx can have sustained the brains longer. "It is conceivable we are just preventing the inevitable, and the brain won't be able to recover," said Nenad Sestan, Yale neuroscientist and the lead researcher.
As a control, other brains received either a fake solution or no solution at all. None revived brain activity and deteriorated as normal.
The researchers hope the technology can enhance our ability to study the brain and its cellular functions. One of the main avenues of such studies would be brain disorders and diseases. This could point the way to developing new of treatments for the likes of brain injuries, Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and neurodegenerative conditions.
"This is an extraordinary and very promising breakthrough for neuroscience. It immediately offers a much better model for studying the human brain, which is extraordinarily important, given the vast amount of human suffering from diseases of the mind [and] brain," Nita Farahany, the bioethicists at the Duke University School of Law who wrote the study's commentary, told National Geographic.
An ethical gray matter
Before anyone gets an Island of Dr. Moreau vibe, it's worth noting that the brains did not approach neural activity anywhere near consciousness.
The BrainEx solution contained chemicals that prevented neurons from firing. To be extra cautious, the researchers also monitored the brains for any such activity and were prepared to administer an anesthetic should they have seen signs of consciousness.
Even so, the research signals a massive debate to come regarding medical ethics and our definition of death.
Most countries define death, clinically speaking, as the irreversible loss of brain or circulatory function. This definition was already at odds with some folk- and value-centric understandings, but where do we go if it becomes possible to reverse clinical death with artificial perfusion?
"This is wild," Jonathan Moreno, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, told the New York Times. "If ever there was an issue that merited big public deliberation on the ethics of science and medicine, this is one."
One possible consequence involves organ donations. Some European countries require emergency responders to use a process that preserves organs when they cannot resuscitate a person. They continue to pump blood throughout the body, but use a "thoracic aortic occlusion balloon" to prevent that blood from reaching the brain.
The system is already controversial because it raises concerns about what caused the patient's death. But what happens when brain death becomes readily reversible? Stuart Younger, a bioethicist at Case Western Reserve University, told Nature that if BrainEx were to become widely available, it could shrink the pool of eligible donors.
"There's a potential conflict here between the interests of potential donors — who might not even be donors — and people who are waiting for organs," he said.
It will be a while before such experiments go anywhere near human subjects. A more immediate ethical question relates to how such experiments harm animal subjects.
Ethical review boards evaluate research protocols and can reject any that causes undue pain, suffering, or distress. Since dead animals feel no pain, suffer no trauma, they are typically approved as subjects. But how do such boards make a judgement regarding the suffering of a "cellularly active" brain? The distress of a partially alive brain?
The dilemma is unprecedented.
Setting new boundaries
Another science fiction story that comes to mind when discussing this story is, of course, Frankenstein. As Farahany told National Geographic: "It is definitely has [sic] a good science-fiction element to it, and it is restoring cellular function where we previously thought impossible. But to have Frankenstein, you need some degree of consciousness, some 'there' there. [The researchers] did not recover any form of consciousness in this study, and it is still unclear if we ever could. But we are one step closer to that possibility."
She's right. The researchers undertook their research for the betterment of humanity, and we may one day reap some unimaginable medical benefits from it. The ethical questions, however, remain as unsettling as the stories they remind us of.
Here are the states where teens smoke the most pot
A recent report compared the youth marijuana usage rates across the U.S. states, revealing some surprising differences.
- The report is based on the most recent data from the National Survey on Drugs Use and Mental Health.
- Overall, the share of younger Americans (17 and under) who have used marijuana in the past year declined slightly from 2016 to 2017, but some states showed increases.
- No studies indicate that marijuana legalization causes more teens to start using marijuana.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.




