The struggle to define fascism as the term loses meaning

Fascism: The catch-all term that no one can define

Can anyone provide a precise definition of fascism without falling into the trap of "anything I dislike"? This question, which sounds like an academic exercise, has gone viral after a well-known public figure—later identified as a young activist—experienced an embarrassing moment on live television when she was unable to articulate an answer. The widely shared clip has peine a long-standing debate: does the label "fascist" still serve to describe anything more than mere fury?

The breakdown that triggered the debate

During a television interview, a journalist and activist known for her anti-fascist fervor was asked directly: "Define fascism." Her response was a stuttering series of disconnected phrases, references to the Civil War, and attempts to deflect using clichés like "it is what Franco did" or "the hatred of the different." The video went viral within hours, not just because of the obvious blunder, but because it reflected a broader phenomenon: the word fascism has become a bottomless pit where anything one wishes to combat can be placed.

Economic fascism: The debate that never arrives

In contrast to the emotional use of the term, some analysts have attempted to return it to its economic roots. Fascism, in its original Italian version, was based on a corporatist model where the State mediated between unions and employers, subordinating the economy to national interest. It was neither laissez-faire capitalism nor state socialism: it was a "third way" that protected private property while making it subject to the regime's dictates. Those calling for a precise definition point out that, without this economic anchor, any right-wing dictatorship—or even any right-wing person—can be branded as fascist. But in the heat of today's debate, these nuances have died.

The drift toward empty insults

Since World War II, the term has undergone unstoppable inflation. First, it applied to any right-wing authoritarian regime; then, to any nationalism; later, to any critique of pogre. Ultimately, a fascist is anyone who does not vote for the left, who opposes a specific law, or who defends private property. In Spain, this process accelerated after the end of Francoism: "facineroso" became synonymous with "anything I don't like," such as a government's economic policy or a rival party's ideology. Consequently, the word has lost all descriptive power and only retains its capacity to hurt—a political weapon that blinds any attempt at dialogue.

The IBI as a test of consistency

A popular discussion thread managed to illustrate this dead end. One participant argued that even the IBI (Impuesto de Bienes Inmuebles, a local property tax) is a form of expropriation and therefore socialism, while another replied that it is simply a tax on property. The seemingly absurd debate reveals how any State intervention can be labeled as either fascism or socialism depending on who is speaking. The terminological confusion is total: the average citizen applies historical labels to contemporary phenomena without understanding their origin or evolution. The result is noise that benefits whoever has the loudest microphone.

The art of not answering

The activist's anecdote has a curious precedent: in a previous interview, another journalist had asked her the same thing. Her response was to dodge it with "I am a girl and I demand dignity" before using the platform to launch a feminist and anti-fascist speech without addressing the question. The tactic of not answering—or answering with something else—is not new. It is the classic resource of the politician who knows that the definition is their weak point. Because if fascism means everything, it means nothing. And if it means nothing, the anti-fascist struggle becomes a battle against windmills.

Conclusion: The official narrative is faltering

As the modern left feeds on empty slogans and posturing, the video has served as a mirror. Not just of one person's incapacity, but of an entire ecosystem that has turned "fascism" into a magic word to shut down any uncomfortable debate. The problem is not historical fascism, which has an academic definition. The problem is current fascism—the kind that everyone defines however they want, because it is no longer an ideology: it is a catch-all drawer for everything one hates. Until a rigorous use of the term is recovered, we will continue to see more speakers collapse when faced with the question they should know how to answer.