Fascism Is Collectivism, Not Conservatism

Only Liberty Can Restrain Power. Collectivism Always Ends in Control

The problem with all forms of collectivism, whether Marxism, "Democratic Socialism" (a phrase its supporters rarely define), traditional socialism, or fascism, is that they all transfer control of the means of production to the state.

In the early years of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin implemented the New Economic Policy after the catastrophic failure of War Communism, which had nationalized all industry and crushed agricultural productivity. The lesson was clear: full state control destroyed incentive and output. But Stalin later reversed course again, collectivizing agriculture entirely, leading to mass starvation in Ukraine known as the Holodomor.

Even if a democratic form of socialism were possible in theory, it would still require the individual to submit to the will of the majority. Majority rule does not guarantee liberty. The French Revolution began with democratic fervor and ended with a dictator in Napoleon, but before Napoleon came to power, the Reign of Terror saw more than 16,000 people executed by guillotine, many without fair trials. Mob rule demanded ideological purity, and like all mobs, it eventually turned inward and cannibalized itself. That is the real danger of majoritarian politics without constraints.

Today's South Africa is another example of majority rule without constraint, leading not to justice, but to revenge - which is also precisely what led to the guillotine in Revolutionary France.

True democracy, unrestrained, tends toward blood lust, which is precisely why the founders of the United States avoided it.

Central planning requires rational tradeoffs. If we want more milk, we must accept producing less ice cream or fewer other products that use milk. People do not like being told this. They demand more of everything and vote for politicians who promise to give it to them. As a result, central plans are often incoherent or nonexistent, and when the system begins to fail, democracy gives way to dictatorship. That is not a hypothetical outcome. It is the observable pattern.

In Venezuela, Hugo Chávez was democratically elected under the banner of “21st-century socialism.” He nationalized industry, controlled food production, and promised to redistribute wealth. Once shortages and inflation spiraled out of control, dissent was criminalized, elections became rigged, and Nicolás Maduro took power under increasingly authoritarian rule.

Supporters of “Democratic Socialism” often insist that their vision does not involve central planning. They say it simply means using democratic means to achieve social justice. However, their public rhetoric frequently contradicts this claim. For example, Bernie Sanders once asked why Americans have 300 brands of deodorant while children are starving. That was not a question rooted in free-market thinking. It was a complaint about the outcomes of voluntary exchange. It was also a call to reallocate resources through the central management of production.

Although “Democratic Socialists” reject clear definitions, the reason is not because their philosophy is new or misunderstood. It is because they are seeking power, not coherence. Ambiguity allows them to shift positions, avoid accountability, and gain support from people who would never back them if their goals were clearly stated. This is not a coincidence. It is the strategy.

Other collectivist systems, including fascism, are more explicit. They advocate complete state control over economic activity. These systems differ mainly in how they attempt to motivate labor, if they even concern themselves with motivation, but in all cases, the core issue is the same: when the government controls economic output, it necessarily controls the people who produce it. Labor is not an abstract concept. It refers to us. If the government owns or directs the use of labor, then it owns or directs us.

In Maoist China, labor was incentivized not by wage, but by revolutionary zeal. The Great Leap Forward attempted to collectivize agriculture and industry through communal labor, resulting in one of the deadliest famines in human history. In contrast, fascist Italy maintained private ownership in name, but forced industrialists to serve state objectives through labor syndicates and coercive guilds. In both cases, the state dictated the use of labor and punished disobedience.

Totalitarianism is not an accidental feature of collectivism. It is a necessary condition. No society can grant the state control over labor and production while still protecting the liberty of its citizens.

Socialism necessarily involves compulsion and always comes at the expense of liberty. While we can argue about when it is acceptable to limit individual liberty in pursuit of collective goals, such as national defense, the conflict between compulsion and freedom will never go away.

Fascism is not the opposite of collectivism. It is one of its forms. This is why it cannot exist within the American political right. The right is defined by a commitment to individual liberty. American conservatism holds that every person has the right to live according to their own values, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others to do the same.

Some Christian conservatives struggle with this principle. They support liberty in general but hesitate when others live in ways that violate Christian teachings. I am a Christian and a conservative, but I do not call myself a Christian Conservative for this reason. Your sins are between you and God; I have no desire to tell you how to live, as long as you do not try to impose your choices on me or on others.

There are legitimate disagreements among conservatives, particularly on issues such as abortion. Conservatives support the concept of ‘choice,’ but we differ on whose choice matters more between the mother’s or the baby’s. Most conservatives are generally pro-life, but many acknowledge that there are exceptions and difficult situations that merit serious thought.

Despite these differences, conservatives are united in their belief that the federal government must operate within the boundaries of the Constitution. We believe that the federal government should exercise only those powers specifically enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. To understand just how far modern government has strayed from those boundaries, it is worth reviewing the actual list of powers granted to Congress:

1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises

2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States

3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, and with Indian tribes

4. To establish a uniform rule of naturalization and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies

5. To coin money, regulate its value, and fix the standard of weights and measures

6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting

7. To establish post offices and post roads

8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts by protecting intellectual property

9. To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court

10. To define and punish piracy and felonies on the high seas

11. To declare war, issue letters of marque and reprisal, and regulate captures

12. To raise and support armies, with appropriations limited to two years

13. To provide and maintain a navy

14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the military

15. To call forth the militia to enforce federal law, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions

16. To organize, arm, and discipline the militia, while leaving training and officer appointments to the states

17. To legislate over the District of Columbia and federal properties

18. To make all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing powers.

These are the only powers Congress has. All other powers are reserved to the states or to the people, as the Tenth Amendment makes clear. The President, as Chief Executive, executes the laws passed by Congress, and as such is also restricted by Article 1, Section 8.

In practice, however, we have allowed the federal government to exceed these boundaries in nearly every area of life. The irony is that the same political movement that expanded federal power now accuses Donald Trump of fascism for using that power. Conservatives never wanted the federal government to have this kind of authority in the first place, and Trump ran in part on a promise to reduce it.

The most common accusation of fascism against Trump involves immigration enforcement, yet immigration law falls squarely within Congress’s enumerated powers. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and it gives the president the duty to execute those laws. That includes the removal of individuals who are in the country illegally. Enforcing immigration law is not fascism. It is a constitutional obligation. Until recently, this was a matter of bipartisan agreement.

It is worth asking why the people who still hold the same views they held ten years ago are now considered extremists.

Trump is far from perfect and open to legitimate criticism, but calling him a fascist is neither honest nor serious. Fascism is not defined by limited government, respect for the Constitution, and individual liberty. To claim otherwise is not only wrong, but laughable. It suggests that Adolf Hitler believed in checks and balances.

Benito Mussolini’s regime outlawed dissent, controlled the press, and maintained tight coordination between the state and industry. Fascist Italy was not about small government or individual liberty. It was about national unity through total control. To compare that to a President enforcing immigration law passed by Congress is not just wrong; it trivializes what fascism actually was.

The political left consistently demands more government control over economic life, social behavior, education, healthcare, and speech. That is what collectivism looks like. That is what fascism, as an economic system, requires. To accuse advocates of limited government of being fascists, while pushing for total state authority, is to invert the truth entirely.

The left loves authoritarianism, as long as they get to pick who wields it. Let us be honest about that. It is the political right that wants constraint.

Collectivism always requires control over the individual. It cannot function without it. That control is incompatible with liberty. American conservatism stands for the exact opposite. It supports a constitutional order in which power is constrained, rights are preserved, and individuals are free to live as they choose.

The real threat to liberty does not come from those who want less government. It comes from those who want to control everything and everyone through it.

Over the past month, I have been writing more long-form essays with the goal of reframing political and economic discourse, rather than engaging in partisan arguments within the existing narratives. This approach usually means avoiding commentary on current events. However, the riots unfolding in Los Angeles, and increasingly across the country, provide a near-perfect example of the disconnect this essay seeks to highlight.

The irony of the situation is striking. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has two primary roles: immigration enforcement and customs enforcement. It was the latter, customs enforcement, that triggered the unrest. ICE was not targeting illegal immigrants when the riots began. The agency was dismantling a smuggling operation.

On the morning of June 6, 2025, ICE agents, supported by DHS, FBI, HSI, and ATF personnel, executed a coordinated smuggling raid across several locations in Los Angeles, including the Fashion District, a Home Depot in Westlake, and a local clothing wholesaler. The operation focused on a human-smuggling and undocumented labor trafficking network. Over 100 individuals were arrested, including suspected smugglers, undocumented workers, and individuals with prior criminal records. Approximately 44 were detained for immigration violations, and at least one person was arrested for obstruction.

Many of those arrested had prior records involving violent crimes. Several had previously been deported. All were allegedly connected to the trafficking network that ICE was tasked with dismantling. Because the raid involved organized crime, ICE agents were equipped with body armor, shields, and non-lethal tools. In some areas, they deployed stun grenades and flash-bangs to secure the scene.

Protests began forming that same afternoon, particularly near the Metropolitan Detention Center and the Home Depot site, and in many cases these protests devolved into riots. Some rioters were recorded throwing objects, including chunks of concrete, at federal agents. Due to Los Angeles’s Sanctuary City policies, reinforced by California’s Sanctuary State law, local police were prohibited from assisting ICE. As a result, local law enforcement largely stood by while federal agents were attacked.

The riots escalated into the evening and began to spread throughout the city. Mayor Karen Bass and other prominent Democrats, including Senator Cory Booker, openly encouraged resistance against ICE. Governor Gavin Newsom stopped short of overt incitement, but his public statements clearly signaled support for the unrest.

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution establishes that when federal law is constitutional, it overrides conflicting state and local laws. This includes federal immigration and anti-trafficking statutes. When California refused to support federal law enforcement in executing those laws, the President of the United States responded by nationalizing the California National Guard. He later deployed the United States Marine Corps to protect federal buildings and personnel.

From a conservative perspective the President’s actions must be viewed through the lens of legality and necessity. His response was fully legal. California was refusing to cooperate with federal authorities and was allowing, even encouraging, violent resistance against them. With the riots spreading and federal officers under attack, federal intervention was not just justified, but essential.

Now, protests and riots are erupting nationwide under the banner of "No Kings," as if enforcing federal law is somehow an act of tyranny. The entire situation began with ICE carrying out its lawful duty to disrupt a human trafficking ring. That responsibility falls squarely within the agency’s legal authority and is backed by laws passed by Congress under its constitutional power over naturalization and immigration.

The outrage from the political left borders on parody. It would be comical - something fit for a Monty Python sketch - were it not causing real harm to real people. The truth is that these protests are not about ICE. They are about denying a duly-elected president the right to exercise lawful authority simply because the political left dislikes him.

It is not the power they oppose. It is the person wielding it.

Britain’s brief experiment with socialism after World War II saw widespread nationalization of coal, steel, railroads, and healthcare. Food rationing continued for nearly a decade. By the late 1970s, the system had collapsed into what became known as the “Winter of Discontent,” with rolling blackouts and uncollected trash piling in the streets. Only after Margaret Thatcher reversed course did the British economy stabilize. Collectivism had not only failed in theory, but in practice, in one of the world’s most developed democracies.

The time has come for Americans to stop tolerating selective outrage. Federal power must be restrained, but that restraint must be principled and consistent. It cannot shift depending on which party controls the White House. If we want to restore constitutional limits and protect liberty, we must begin by demanding intellectual honesty, from our media, from our elected officials, and from ourselves. We cannot allow political fashion to replace the rule of law. If you believe in the Constitution, then defend it, even when it is enforced by someone you did not vote for. That is the test of principle. If we fail, we will not lose a debate. We will lose our republic.