One of the most common rhetorical strategies employed by the modern Left is the indiscriminate use of terms like “Nazi” or “fascist” to describe political opponents. This tactic is not merely an insult but a deliberate attempt to delegitimize, silence, and morally discredit anyone who challenges leftist orthodoxy. Rather than engaging in substantive debate, the Left weaponizes historical atrocities to frame their adversaries as dangerous extremists. This practice has its roots in communist propaganda and has evolved into a powerful tool of psychological manipulation, ensuring that anyone who questions progressive ideology is immediately put on the defensive.
The Origins of the Smear Tactic
The Left’s use of “fascist” as a universal slur dates back to the early 20th century. Communist movements, particularly those aligned with the Soviet Union, frequently used the term to demonize all forms of opposition. Joseph Stalin labeled his political enemies—whether conservative, liberal, or even rival leftists—as “fascists” to justify purges and repression¹. This manipulation continued through the Cold War, with the USSR accusing Western democracies and capitalist societies of being “fascist” regimes². The goal was simple: to conflate any opposition to communism with Nazism or fascism, thus making it morally indefensible.
George Orwell noted this rhetorical shift in 1946, observing that the word “fascism” had become almost meaningless, used as a synonym for anything considered undesirable³. This trend has continued into the modern era, where accusations of fascism function as a means of enforcing ideological conformity. Any deviation from progressive doctrine—whether regarding immigration, cultural traditions, or economic policy—risks being met with accusations of extremism.
Why the Left Uses This Tactic
Labeling opponents as “Nazis” or “fascists” serves multiple strategic purposes. First, it provides a method of moral delegitimization. Once someone is labeled a “Nazi” or “fascist,” they are no longer treated as a rational person with a different perspective but as an existential threat. This allows the accuser to bypass debate entirely, as no one is expected to engage with or defend a supposed “Nazi.” This framing also provides the accuser with a moral high ground, positioning them as a defender of democracy, human rights, and social justice—regardless of whether their own methods are authoritarian⁴.
Second, it enables avoidance of policy debate. Instead of addressing legitimate political disagreements, leftists can use these labels to shut down discussion. If someone argues for controlled immigration, they are called a “fascist” rather than having their position debated on its merits. If someone critiques radical gender ideology, they are smeared as akin to Nazi eugenicists rather than having their arguments engaged⁵. This tactic serves as a distraction—by shifting the focus from policy substance to moral outrage, leftists avoid having to justify their own positions.
Third, it functions as a tool of psychological warfare. The accusation of being a “Nazi” carries a heavy social stigma. People fear losing their jobs, reputations, and relationships over such a label. This makes it an effective tool for silencing dissent before it even happens⁶. Corporations, universities, and public figures are especially vulnerable to this type of attack. Many institutions choose to preemptively conform to leftist demands rather than risk being accused of tolerating “fascism.”
Fourth, it justifies censorship and political repression. If someone is a “Nazi” or “fascist,” then extreme measures to suppress them become justifiable. This is why radical leftist groups like Antifa claim they are engaging in “self-defense” when using violence against conservatives or nationalists⁷. Big Tech platforms also use this rhetoric to justify deplatforming individuals who challenge progressive narratives, portraying them as dangerous extremists even when their views are mainstream. The logic is simple: “If we allow fascists to speak, we risk another Holocaust.” This emotional appeal overrides any discussion about free speech or due process⁸.
Who Actually Resembles Fascism More?
While the Left consistently accuses conservatives of being “fascists” or “Nazis,” an objective analysis reveals that the Left exhibits far more characteristics of fascist ideology than the modern conservative movement. Fascist regimes sought to dominate every aspect of public and private life, imposing ideological control over speech, education, the economy, and culture⁹. The modern Left’s enforcement of ideological conformity through government policies, corporate pressure, and mob intimidation mirrors these historical tendencies far more closely than anything found within mainstream conservatism.
Fascist governments also engaged in extensive state and corporate collusion, using private industry as a tool to enforce their ideological and economic vision¹⁰. Today, the Left has mastered the art of corporate-government partnerships, leveraging Big Tech, media conglomerates, and financial institutions to silence opposition and promote progressive causes. The widespread censorship of dissenting voices, often in coordination with government agencies, mirrors the economic and information control structures of Mussolini’s Italy¹¹.
Speech suppression was another hallmark of fascist regimes, where propaganda dominated the public sphere and dissenters faced severe consequences. Today, the Left leads the charge in censorship, using hate speech laws, deplatforming, and cancel culture to silence critics¹². Social media platforms actively suppress conservative viewpoints, mainstream media outlets coordinate attacks against political opponents, and universities enforce rigid ideological conformity through speech codes and mandatory diversity training¹³.
Additionally, fascist regimes promoted collective identity over individual merit, enforcing rigid social hierarchies based on race, class, or nationality. The modern Left’s obsession with identity politics mirrors this structure, replacing national or racial purity with “diversity” quotas, racial reparations, and gender ideology¹⁴. The enforcement of racial preferences in hiring, college admissions, and even criminal justice policies bears striking similarities to the group-based discrimination policies of past totalitarian regimes.
Political violence was another defining feature of fascism, with Mussolini’s Blackshirts and Hitler’s Brownshirts using mob intimidation to silence and terrorize opponents. Today, Antifa operates as a modern-day equivalent, engaging in riots, arson, and physical assaults against conservatives and nationalists¹⁵. The widespread destruction during Black Lives Matter protests, often excused by progressive leaders, exemplifies the Left’s willingness to use violence as a political tool. While the January 6th riot is frequently cited as an example of right-wing extremism, it pales in comparison to the sustained, organized violence of leftist groups over the past decade¹⁶.
Conclusion
The Left’s habit of labeling opponents as “Nazis” or “fascists” is not about historical accuracy or moral integrity—it is a calculated strategy to silence dissent and enforce ideological conformity. This smear tactic relies on fear, misinformation, and social pressure, rather than legitimate debate. A closer examination of fascist ideology reveals that its core elements—totalitarian control, state-corporate collusion, censorship, identity politics, and political violence—are far more prevalent on the Left than among conservatives.
While conservatism fundamentally rejects these principles by defending individual liberty, free markets, free speech, and cultural traditions, the modern Left increasingly embraces authoritarian measures to achieve its goals. Thus, the widespread use of “fascist” as an insult against conservatives is not only historically inaccurate but also serves as a projection tactic—accusing opponents of what the Left itself is guilty of. Recognizing this tactic for what it is and refusing to be intimidated by it is essential for maintaining open discourse and resisting ideological tyranny.
Thanks for reading Selsey Substack! This post is public so feel free to share it.
Footnotes
Conquest, Robert. The Great Terror, 1990.
Courtois, Stéphane et al. The Black Book of Communism, 1999.
Orwell, George. Politics and the English Language, 1946.
Scruton, Roger. Fools, Frauds, and Firebrands, 2015.
Pluckrose, Helen & Lindsay, James. Cynical Theories, 2020.
Rufo, Christopher. America’s Cultural Revolution, 2023.
Bray, Mark. Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook, 2017.
Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind, 2012.
Payne, Stanley G. A History of Fascism, 1914-1945, 1995.
Mosse, George L. The Fascist Revolution, 1999.
Kurlander, Eric. Hitler’s Monsters, 2017.
Hitchens, Peter. The Abolition of Britain, 1999.
Murray, Douglas. The War on the West, 2022.
Sowell, Thomas. Discrimination and Disparities, 2018.
Horowitz, David. Radical Son, 1997.
Ngo, Andy. Unmasked: Inside Antifa’s Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy, 2021.