US presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris during a CNN town hall meeting called Trump a “fascist” based on the remarks of Trump’s former top aide, General Mark Milley.
A columnist in the Washington Post raised some scepticism by asking if millions of Trump supporters are falling for fascism. In a recent article, a columnist for The Guardian also raised a red flag over loose use of the term fascism to the point of rendering it meaningless.
To try to shine a light on this, below is an imaginary conversation between Confucius (551 – 479 BCE) and Karl Marx (1818-1883 CE).
Confucius: I am pleased to discuss with you today, Marx, about a matter that seems to trouble the modern world. I understand that "fascism" is a term frequently spoken with great alarm and disdain.
Marx: Yes, Confucius. Fascism is indeed a word used with passion, often applied to any form of authoritarianism or centralized control. In my time, the oppressive state was a matter of great importance -- yet today, the term seems to be stretched far beyond its original meaning.
Confucius: In my philosophy, there is a virtue in naming things properly. When words lose their precise meaning, disorder follows. What then, Marx, is the true essence of "fascism" as you see it?
Marx: (Nodding in agreement) You are wise to ask for clarity. Fascism, as it developed in the 20th century, was a reactionary ideology. It embraced extreme nationalism, suppressed class struggle, and placed power in the hands of a dictatorial leader who sought to align the interests of the state with the interests of big capital. It is a tool of the ruling class to maintain control, often through violence and propaganda. A strong loyal military, paramilitary, and a strong ideology are essential tools for sustaining fascism
Confucius: (Pauses thoughtfully) Hmm, so it is a means of maintaining hierarchical order, yet without the moral virtues necessary for just leadership. Would it not then be more accurate to criticize the lack of benevolence in governance rather than merely label all forms of central power as “fascism?”
Marx: Indeed! The problem is that today, the word is hurled at any authoritarian government, regardless of its policies or intentions.
This leads to muddled thinking about power itself, where even a government striving for the people’s welfare is branded as oppressive if it acts decisively. Take the communist states as examples, China as a case in point. Western writers love to use the adjective “authoritarian” as they describe modern China while ignoring the great success of the government in achieving infrastructure development and virtually eliminating extreme poverty, lifting tens of hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.
Let’s get back to the conversation.
Confucius: Ah, I see. The confusion lies in the misalignment of virtue and power. I have long said that a ruler must act with *ren* -- benevolence -- and *li* -- proper conduct. A strong government is not inherently evil; it is the character of those in power that determines whether the strength is for good or ill.
Marx: I never denied the need for a strong government, but it must be a government that serves the interests of the working class, not the bourgeoisie. Power must be in the hands of those who produce, not those who exploit. You know, I even used the phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat!”
Confucius: And yet, Marx, we both agree that society requires order, and order requires a certain strength. In my teachings, the ruler sets the example, cultivating virtue and ensuring that the people follow. Disorder arises when the ruler fails to live by his moral obligations, not simply because he or she has power.
Marx: You speak of the moral dimension of leadership, which is often absent from modern discussions. Today, economic development is often prioritized without considering the ethics of governance. People now equate economic success with virtue, ignoring whether the state rules justly. It is common knowledge that the ruling political rules on behalf of the leading economic class.
The state always uses cunning that we know from Machiavelli, a political philosopher, who was around 2,000 years after you, and like you he too sought an advisory role to the prince. People use the label for anything strong, mistakenly, as "fascism" -- they've not read about the true fascists, the likes of Hitler and Mussolini. Some people put Stalin and Mao in that category, which I disagree with. But you may say, I am biased. (Marx chuckles).
Confucius: A good government must cultivate both material prosperity and moral integrity. A strong state can uplift the people, but it must not lose its “dao” -- the Way. Without proper guidance, strength becomes mere force, and force without virtue becomes tyranny.
Marx: Perhaps there is truth in what you say. But in a capitalist society, where the state serves the interests of the wealthy, no amount of individual virtue can overcome the systemic injustice. The power structures themselves must change. A revolution is needed to realign the state with the people’s interests, to lay the groundwork for a truly just society.
Confucius: Revolution may bring change, but chaos follows where there is no guiding principle. I favour gradual reform and the cultivation of virtue over time. When people know their roles and obligations, society becomes harmonious. Revolution, in my view, disrupts the proper order and leads to suffering of the common people.
Habibul Haque Khondker is a sociologist and columnist.
