Neoliberalism, Neofascism and Who Holds Power
I began with a question: are neoliberalism and neofascism the same thing? Reading Robert W. McChesney, I came to see that his argument was not that they are the same. They begin from different beliefs and they use different language, but they can serve the same interests, and the weakening of democracy under one can leave the ground open for the other.
Neoliberalism puts private ownership, competition and markets at the centre of economic life. Its promise is greater freedom to own a business, trade, invest and make your own economic choices. It favours private provision over public provision and fewer restraints on business. It does not need a cult of the leader.
But the claim that neoliberalism wants as little government as possible needs more care. Markets depend on laws, courts and institutions that enforce contracts and protect property. Private ownership itself depends on the state. Government may withdraw from housing, healthcare or public transport while remaining strong when it comes to contracts, debt and ownership. The question is not simply whether the state is large or small. The question is what the state does and whose interests it protects.
This is where my objection begins. If a few people own much of the land, housing, finance and industry then protecting ownership also protects their power over other people’s lives. A worker and an employer may both be legally free to sign a contract or refuse it, but they do not necessarily stand in the same position. The worker may need the wage by Friday because the rent is due. The owner may be able to wait.
I am tempted to call this hyper-capitalism: more of ordinary life placed under private ownership and profit and fewer things provided as public rights. But that is a description rather than a precise economic term. The argument still has to come down to the ground. Who owns the houses? Who owns the factory? Which service was sold? Which protection was removed? What happened to the worker, tenant or patient afterwards?
On ownership and control this stands sharply apart from democratic socialism. Democratic socialism seeks to give people a real say over the economic decisions that shape their lives through public, worker or collective ownership and democratic institutions. State ownership by itself is not enough. A government can own a factory and the workers can still have no say over their work.
Neofascism makes a different claim about power. The leader claims to speak for the nation and then begins to place himself at the centre of it. Loyalty to the country becomes loyalty to the leader. Those who oppose him cease to be ordinary political opponents and become enemies. Courts, newspapers, universities and trade unions become problems when they resist his power.
Private business does not have to disappear. Owners can keep their companies and their profits while workers lose independent unions and citizens lose the means to challenge the government. The leader speaks about national unity but the land, factories, banks and wealth can remain in the same hands.
This is where McChesney saw the connection. He argued that neoliberalism weakens the institutions through which ordinary people exercise power and that wealthy owners may accept authoritarian government when it protects their property and position. His description of Trump’s emerging neofascism was written in 2017, though the excerpt appeared in 2025. He was warning about a direction. He was not saying that every stage of that process had already happened.
Trump’s own words help explain why I see the cult of the leader as an important part of MAGA. In March 2023 he told supporters, “I am your justice” and “I am your retribution.” That June he said, “I’m being indicted for you.” His legal troubles became something he said he suffered on their behalf. The message joins the fate of the supporter to the fate of the leader. An attack on Trump becomes an attack on them.
That does not mean every Trump voter worships him. It means Trump’s political language asks supporters to see his struggle as their struggle and his enemies as their enemies.
The recent press ban gives this a concrete form. On September 18, 2026, Trump announced that CNN, MS NOW and Politico would be barred from White House grounds. He later invoked national security without producing evidence that the outlets posed a threat. The three organisations sued on September 21. They were still free to publish and broadcast, but their access to the presidency had been cut because of reporting Trump condemned.
I see this as punishment for scrutiny. National security was used to defend the president against criticism, but the president’s reputation and the country’s security are not the same thing. The lawsuit matters too. The ban shows the use of presidential power against the press and the lawsuit shows that institutions still exist that can fight it.
The distinctions matter. Neoliberalism does not inevitably produce fascism. Concentrated wealth alone does not make a country fascist and neither does every form of authoritarian government. The danger lies in the combination: extreme nationalism, power gathered around a leader, attacks on opposition and the steady removal of democratic rights.
My argument is that economic power and political freedom cannot be separated. A person can still have a vote and have almost no say over the rent, the workplace, the hospital or the wage. If that person then loses the union, the independent newspaper, the court or some other means of challenging those who hold power, the space in which they can act becomes smaller still.
That is why I want to judge both systems by the same basic question: who holds power, and what can ordinary people do when that power is used against them?