The Great Confusion: Why They Keep Lying About Socialism, Communism, and Fascism
Politicians are deliberately blurring history to divide us. Here’s what the words actually mean—and what’s at stake in 2025.
.jpg){kind=link}
There’s a war on meaning—and we are losing it. In 2025, political leaders, media personalities, and well-funded think tanks are twisting the language of history to confuse the public and discredit progressive values.
If you’ve ever heard someone call Medicare “communist,” or equate Nazism with social democracy, you’re seeing this rhetorical manipulation in action.
Let’s break down exactly what these terms mean, why the confusion persists, and how this confusion is being weaponized today — with real consequences.
Real-World Examples
In U.S. Politics Today
1. Trump labels NYC mayoral hopeful a “100% Communist lunatic”
In June 2025, former President Trump dismissed progressive NYC candidate Zohran Mamdani as “100% Communist,” mixing red-baiting with personal attacks—making ideological slurs central to his message.
In reality, Mamdani is a democratic socialist whose work focuses on tenants' rights, climate justice, and inclusive governance, aligning with values rooted in civic participation, not authoritarianism.
2. Trump accuses VP Harris of being a “marxist, communist, fascist, socialist”
During his 2024 campaign, Trump labeled Vice President Kamala Harris with a laundry list of authoritarian ideologies, merging opposing systems to weaponize fear.
In reality, Harris has consistently supported democratic norms, constitutional governance, and policies grounded in liberal democratic traditions, making the attack not only misleading but ideologically incoherent.
3. Project 2025 branded as a fascist takeover
Critics of Trump’s advisory plan (Project 2025) describe it as endorsing fascism.
While Project 2025 doesn’t exhibit all classical features of early 20th-century fascism (like overt imperialism), its emphasis on centralized authority, purges of the civil service, suppression of dissent, religious nationalism, and militantly framing opposition, places it squarely within a contemporary fascistic approach to state-building.
International Cases
4. Canada’s Pierre Poilievre calls Nazis socialists
Conservative leader Poilievre has repeatedly invoked “socialist” when referencing Nazis, purposefully blending fascism and socialism to discredit contemporary left-wing opponents
5. red-baiting protesters as terrorists
Right-wing forces in Peru and the Phillipines have labeled protestors, educators, those in the legal profession, and others as “communists” or terrorists to justify threats of violence and deadly repression.
These rhetorical manipulations aren’t just confusing — they’re corrosive.
Historical Confusion and Manipulation
In the early 20th century, the Nazis included “socialist” in their party name — the National Socialist German Workers’ Party — even though they violently crushed socialist movements.
They used the label to appeal to workers while promoting nationalist and racial supremacy.
This rhetorical sleight-of-hand continues today. Authoritarian regimes such as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) and the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Laos) use the language of democracy and republics in their official names to lend legitimacy and obscure the reality of one-party rule and state repression — just as East Germany once did with its misleading title, the German Democratic Republic.
During the Cold War, both superpowers used these words to blur and misrepresent. Reagan-era conservatives resurrected “liberal fascism” rhetoric to discredit social welfare policies.
Meanwhile, the Soviet Union and its communist allies in the Warsaw Pact referred to all western democracies as fascist states. East Germans called the Berlin Wall dividing the communist east and capitalist west as the “Anti-Fascist Bulwark.”
Why Blurring Is Back in the Media
In fact, this strategic use of language — especially the false association between socialism and Nazism — has become a widespread tactic among modern revisionists aiming to discredit progressive politics.
As historians Matthew Fitzpatrick and A. Dirk Moses argue, this conflation is both factually incorrect and politically motivated.
Hitler’s Nazi regime, despite its name, was explicitly anti-socialist: it crushed trade unions, outlawed leftist parties, and allied with big business.
The “socialist” language in National Socialism was a calculated misnomer used to appeal to working-class voters, not a reflection of the party’s ideology or policies.
The authors note that today’s revisionists — from pundits like Peter van Onselen to authors like Jonah Goldberg and Dinesh D’Souza — use this distortion to suggest that modern welfare policies and social democracy are fascist by association.
History shows that the Nazi regime preserved private property, suppressed socialist movements, and pursued a racist, nationalist agenda with full support from industrial elites.
Conflating socialism with Nazism is not only intellectually dishonest — it’s a dangerous rewriting of history meant to undermine public support for social safety nets and egalitarian ideals.
The Cato Institute Example
A recent article from the libertarian Cato Institute claimed that modern youth support for socialism is dangerous because socialism, communism, and fascism are all rooted in the same collectivist philosophy.
It echoed old arguments by Friedrich Hayek and Ayn Rand that linked socialism with tyranny.
The article lumped together Nazism, Soviet communism, and Scandinavian-style welfare systems, warning that any collectivist tendency leads inevitably to dictatorship.
This oversimplification ignores important distinctions between democratic socialism and authoritarian regimes.
It also falsely implies that progressive taxation and public healthcare are steps toward fascism or totalitarianism.
In doing so, it misleads readers and distorts public understanding.
Such messaging contributes to the current atmosphere where universal programs are smeared as extremist — and where support for democratic institutions is undermined.
Why This Matters
These labels are not just academic debates: they are used to justify laws restricting protest, bans on books and curricula, and attacks on unions and civil society.
The smearing of social safety programs as “socialist” or “fascist” is not new. During the New Deal era, even Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins were vilified for introducing:
A forty-hour workweek, a minimum wage, worker's compensation, unemployment compensation, a federal law banning child labor, direct federal aid for unemployment relief, Social Security, a revitalized public employment service and health insurance. — Kirstin Downey, The woman behind the New Deal : the life of Frances Perkins, FDR's Secretary of Labor and his moral conscience
Language paves the way for policy. When fascist or communist becomes a catchall for opponents, it becomes easier to criminalize dissent and undermine progress.
Understanding and correctly using these terms is crucial for anyone who wants to be an honest and impactful agent of change.
What These Words Actually Mean
Socialism
Socialism generally refers to economic systems advocating for collective or public ownership of the means of production, but with many variations ranging from democratic socialism (which retains democratic institutions and civil liberties) to more authoritarian models.
These systems often emphasize wealth redistribution, universal access to health care and education, and a robust social safety net.
In the U.S., wealth redistribution has historically meant progressive taxation, social safety net programs like unemployment insurance, food assistance, and Social Security, and public investment in services such as education and infrastructure.
In recent decades, however, tax policy has increasingly favored the wealthy, and economic inequality has widened, leading some to argue that wealth is now being redistributed upward through regressive taxation, corporate subsidies, and financial deregulation.
In the U.S., examples of programs with socialist features include Social Security, Medicare, public libraries, public schools, the U.S. Postal Service, fire departments, police departments, municipal utilities, interstate highways, and farm subsidies.
These programs involve the collective pooling of resources and government management for public benefit — the essence of many forms of democratic socialism — yet they are often seen as simply part of the American way of life rather than ideological choices.
One might argue that “corporate welfare” — subsidies, tax breaks, and bailouts for large corporations — resembles socialism, but this is misleading.
In democratic socialism, public funds would be used to benefit the public; in corporate welfare, the public bears the cost while private entities retain profits and decision-making control.
Communism
Communism (as envisioned by Karl Marx) is a theoretical end-stage of socialism: a stateless, classless society where private property and social hierarchies no longer exist.
In theory, it’s a society governed by shared ownership and the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” However, no nation has fully realized Marx’s vision.
In practice, 20th-century regimes that called themselves communist — including the Soviet Union, Maoist China, and others — established highly centralized and rigidly authoritarian governments.
These systems suppressed dissent, curtailed freedoms, and justified state violence in the name of revolutionary progress.
Read about China’s Cultural Revolution, and the Soviet Union’s Five Year Plans under Stalin to full appreciate how brutal these regimes can be.
Critics argue these regimes betrayed Marx’s ideals, while supporters claim they were imperfect but necessary responses to global inequality and imperialism.
Fascism
Fascism is an authoritarian, ultranationalist ideology rooted in the belief that “strength,” unity, and tradition must override individual rights and democratic deliberation.
Fascist regimes elevate a strong leader, demand loyalty to the state, and often promote a mythic national past.
Unlike socialism or communism, fascism does not seek economic equality — it embraces hierarchy, militarism, and the merging of corporate and state power.
Historically, fascists have violently opposed both socialism and communism.
Mussolini began as a socialist but turned against the movement to found Italian Fascism, emphasizing nationalism over class struggle.
As early as 1918 he believed Italy needed “a man who is ruthless and energetic enough to make a clean sweep,” — illustrating in one sentence the promise and the threat of an autocrat.
Hitler’s Nazi Party, though it used the word “socialist,” crushed leftist parties and labor unions, persecuted communists, and aligned with industrialists.
Fascism typically scapegoats minorities, controls the press, denigrates educators, and uses propaganda and force to maintain power.
A Final Word
When we lose hold of what words truly mean, we also lose the ability to build a shared reality. That’s why I write — to help reclaim clarity and truth in a time of deliberate distortion.
If you found this piece clarifying, please share it with someone who’s been overwhelmed by political noise or frustrated by the way everything seems upside down.
If it helped you name what you've been sensing but couldn't quite articulate, consider subscribing. In my section Lessons Learned, I’m building a space for thoughtful readers who care about democracy, justice, and history.
When words lose meaning, society loses stability — and we all lose our footing.
Let’s stay grounded.
Hello Friendly Reader! I’m a former military intelligence analyst turned nonprofit lifer—with two decades in housing, crisis response, recovery services, disability support, and mental health advocacy. The G.I. Bill funded my M.Div., which I used to study world religions and contemplative practice.
If you’re feeling flush, please consider tossing a coin into the tip jar. Many thanks, my friend!
If you’re up for another up-to-the-moment essay about trending politics and history….
The Youth Are Watching: Can Democrats Reclaim Populism Before It’s Too Late?
Something is stirring in American politics—something old, something hopeful, and something dangerous.