In an era of heightened political anxiety, observers often scour popular culture—military-inspired fashion, choreographed parades, stirring anthems, nationalist rhetoric, or isolationist policies—for signs of fascism or totalitarian resurgence. This impulse, fueled by vivid memories of 20th-century tyrannies, is understandable but arguably misguided. These overt symbols, while evocative, are unreliable predictors of authoritarian intent, often reflecting cultural trends or civic traditions rather than ideological blueprints. Instead, a subtler, more pernicious threat looms: the gradual capture of the state apparatus—sometimes dubbed the “deep state”—by a single party or ideology. Here we argue that the fixation on pop culture as a fascist barometer is largely a distraction, a superficial exercise that misses the slow, complex, and infinitely more dangerous consolidation of power within institutions. Through historical precedent, contemporary examples, and theoretical insight, we will explore why state capture, not aesthetic echoes, represents the true peril.
Pop Culture as a Red Herring
The association between authoritarianism and cultural spectacle is deeply ingrained. Nazi Germany’s black-clad SS, the synchronized goose-stepping of Nuremberg rallies, and the martial strains of Horst-Wessel-Lied created a theatrical grammar of power that still haunts the imagination. Mussolini’s Italy, too, leaned heavily on aesthetics, reviving Roman eagles and gladiatorial motifs to project an imperial destiny. In Franco’s Spain, military parades and Catholic iconography fused to cement a regime of order and tradition. These regimes understood that symbols could unify, intimidate, and inspire—tools of propaganda as much as governance.
Today, this legacy prompts scrutiny of similar elements. Fashion houses like Balenciaga or Prada periodically flirt with militaristic designs—camouflage prints, epauletted jackets—prompting think pieces about “fascist chic.” Parades, such as Russia’s Victory Day celebrations with their tank columns and flyovers, stir unease among Western commentators. Anthems and slogans—“Sweet Caroline” repurposed for nationalist rallies, “L’amour Toujours” superimposed with the lyrics Auslander Haus, or Trump’s “Make America Great Again”—are dissected for authoritarian undertones. Isolationism, too, from Brexit’s “Take Back Control” to India’s Hindu nationalist rhetoric, is flagged as a gateway to totalitarian nostalgia.
Yet these signifiers are slippery. Military aesthetics have been recycled across contexts—by punk rockers in the 1970s as subversion, by video gamers in Call of Duty as escapism, or by hip-hop artists as swagger. Parades are ubiquitous: France’s Bastille Day boasts tanks and jets, yet no one calls it fascist; North Korea’s displays are chilling, but their form mimics democratic pageantry. Anthems stir emotion everywhere—the U.S. Star-Spangled Banner exalts war, but its context is patriotic, not dictatorial. Isolationism, meanwhile, has pragmatic roots: 19th-century U.S. Monroe Doctrine or post-WWI British retrenchment were not preludes to tyranny. Umberto Eco’s “Ur-Fascism” cautions against over-reading such traits, noting that fascism was a “fuzzy totalitarianism,” defined less by uniforms than by its rejection of dissent. To equate a runway trend or a border wall with Hitler’s Reich is to dilute the term’s gravity.
Moreover, pop culture is inherently polyvalent. A swastika tattoo might signal neo-Nazi allegiance—or a Buddhist peace symbol, depending on the wearer. Nationalist rhetoric can rally a democracy against external threats as easily as it can cloak despotism. This ambiguity renders cultural symbols poor diagnostic tools. They are noise, not signal—arresting, but rarely dispositive.
The Deeper Threat: State Capture and the “Deep State”
Contrast this with the quiet menace of state capture, where a single ideology or faction seizes the machinery of governance. Unlike parades, this process lacks fanfare: it unfolds in boardrooms, courtrooms, and backroom deals. Political scientists define state capture as the systematic redirection of public institutions to serve private or partisan ends. The “deep state,” a term born in Turkish politics to describe shadowy military-bureaucratic cliques, has evolved in popular usage to mean any entrenched, unaccountable power bloc—often one aligned with a dominant ideology. Whether by design or drift, this capture erodes pluralism, the lifeblood of democracy.
History offers stark lessons. In Weimar Germany, the Nazi ascent was not solely a triumph of rallies but a takeover of the state’s sinews. By 1932, Hitler’s party had infiltrated the judiciary with loyalists, neutered regional governments via Gleichschaltung, and co-opted the military through promises of rearmament. The Reichstag fire was merely the capstone; the groundwork was laid in bureaucratic trenches. Similarly, Stalin’s USSR saw the Bolsheviks transform a revolutionary coalition into a one-party state by purging rivals from the Politburo, NKVD, and local soviets—often without public spectacle. These were not sudden coups but methodical consolidations, invisible to casual onlookers.
Modern examples amplify the point. In Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s AKP has spent two decades reshaping the state: purging 150,000 public servants after the 2016 coup attempt, stacking the Constitutional Court with allies, and turning state media into a party mouthpiece. Elections persist, but their fairness is hollowed out by gerrymandering and opposition arrests. Hungary’s Viktor Orbán follows a parallel script: his Fidesz party controls 70% of media outlets, rewrote the constitution to entrench power, and neutered the judiciary—all under the guise of “illiberal democracy.” In Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro’s regime clings to power not through charisma but via a loyal Supreme Court, military patronage, and control of oil revenues. These cases share a pattern: the state becomes an extension of the ruling clique, not a neutral arbiter.
This process is glacial, leveraging legal mechanisms and exploiting public fatigue. It thrives on complexity—arcane laws, obscure appointments—that defies easy headlines. Modern authoritarianism rarely storms in with tanks; it slinks through the back door, rigging rules and co-opting referees. The result is a façade of democracy—parliaments sit, ballots are cast—but power ossifies into a single hand.
Why State Capture Outweighs Cultural Symbols
State capture’s danger lies in its depth and durability. A fashion trend can be boycotted; a parade can be rained out. But once a party entrenches itself in the bureaucracy, courts, or security services, extricating it demands Herculean effort. Poland’s Law and Justice Party (PiS) illustrates this: since 2015, it has overhauled the Constitutional Tribunal, retired judges en masse, and installed loyalists, prompting EU sanctions but little domestic reversal. In India, the BJP’s dominance over electoral commissions, tax agencies, and media regulators has raised fears of a “one-party democracy.” In the U.S., partisan battles over Supreme Court seats, gerrymandering, and voter laws hint at institutional skew—less dramatic than swastikas, but more enduring.
Cultural symbols, by contrast, are fleeting and interpretable. A military jacket might signal discipline to one viewer, irony to another; a nationalist anthem might inspire unity or division. Their meaning shifts with context—think of the Confederate flag, a heritage marker to some, a racist relic to others. State capture, however, is unambiguous: it seeks monopoly, not dialogue. Hannah Arendt’s “banality of evil” captures this: totalitarianism matures not in grand gestures but in the mundane accretion of control—unsigned memos, rigged audits, silenced whistleblowers.
The global rise of “competitive authoritarianism” underscores this shift. Leaders like Russia’s Putin or China’s Xi Jinping rely less on ideological pageantry than on systemic dominance: Kremlin-aligned oligarchs control media and energy; the CCP’s Central Commission for Discipline Inspection polices dissent. Even in democracies, partisan capture looms: U.S. debates over the FBI’s impartiality or Brazil’s judicial crackdowns on corruption reveal how institutions can tilt toward one side. These are not photogenic tyrannies but technocratic ones, grinding down opposition through process, not propaganda.
Addressing Counterarguments
One might argue that cultural symbols are not mere distractions but amplifiers—rallying cries that pave the way for state capture. Hitler’s rallies, after all, galvanized support before the Nazis seized power. Yet this conflates cause and effect: symbols gain potency only when institutions are already compromised. The Weimar Republic fell not because of parades but because its judiciary and legislature buckled. Today, Orbán’s Hungary or Modi’s India show that state capture often precedes, not follows, cultural shifts—nationalist rhetoric spikes after power is secured, not before.
Another critique holds that ignoring cultural signals risks underestimating grassroots extremism—neo-Nazi marches or Proud Boys’ militarized posturing. These are real threats, but their impact hinges on institutional acquiescence. The 2021 U.S. Capitol riot, for instance, failed not because its symbols were weak, but because courts, Congress, and the military upheld democratic norms. Absent state complicity, such movements remain fringe.
Conclusion: Refocusing the Lens
The hunt for fascism in pop culture is not wholly baseless—symbols can echo ideologies—but it is a shallow pursuit, mistaking style for substance. Military fashion, parades, anthems, and nationalism are too fluid, too universal, to reliably signal totalitarian intent. They are the ephemera of human expression, not its essence. The real resurgence of authoritarianism lurks elsewhere: in the slow capture of the state, where a party or ideology turns public institutions into private fiefs. This is not the fascism of newsreels, with its torchlit marches and bellowing führers, but a quieter, more resilient strain—one that wears suits, cites laws, and counts votes it has already fixed.
To borrow from Eco, “the enemy is still around,” but he is not always goose-stepping. He is more likely drafting a memo, appointing a loyalist, or rewriting a rulebook. Scholars, activists, and citizens must shift their gaze—from the runway to the registry, from the parade ground to the polling station. The threat is not in what we see but in what we overlook: the machinery of power, humming beneath the surface, waiting to be claimed.
References
- Arendt, H. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Viking.
- Bartels, L. M. (2022). “The Capitol Riot and the Resilience of American Democracy.” Perspectives on Politics.
- Corrales, J. (2020). “Democratic Backsliding through Electoral Irregularities: The Case of Venezuela.” European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies.
- Dahl, R. A. (2021). “The Shifting Landscape of American Democracy.” Journal of Democracy.
- Eco, U. (1995). “Ur-Fascism.” New York Review of Books.
- Evans, R. J. (2003). The Coming of the Third Reich. Penguin.
- Falasca-Zamponi, S. (1997). Fascist Spectacle: The Aesthetics of Power in Mussolini’s Italy. University of California Press.
- Fitzpatrick, S. (1999). Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times. Oxford University Press.
- Freedom House. (2023). Freedom in the World 2023: Turkey. freedomhouse.org.
- Galeotti, M. (2021). “Russia’s Victory Day: Parade as Propaganda.” Moscow Times.
- Hebdige, D. (1979). Subculture: The Meaning of Style. Routledge.
- Hellman, J. S., Jones, G., & Kaufmann, D. (2003). “Seize the State, Seize the Day: State Capture and Influence in Transition Economies.” Journal of Comparative Economics.
- Judis, J. B. (2016). The Populist Explosion: How the Great Recession Transformed American and European Politics. Columbia Global Reports.
- Kelemen, R. D. (2020). “Hungary’s Illiberal Democracy: A Case Study in Democratic Erosion.” Journal of European Public Policy.
- Kershaw, I. (2000). The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation. Bloomsbury.
- Krastev, I., & Holmes, S. (2019). The Light That Failed: Why the West Is Losing the Fight for Democracy. Pegasus Books.
- Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Crown.
- Lofgren, M. (2016). The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government. Viking.
- Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W.W. Norton.
- Özbudun, E. (2015). “Turkey’s Judiciary and the Drift Toward Competitive Authoritarianism.” The International Spectator.
- Payne, S. G. (1987). The Franco Regime, 1936–1975. University of Wisconsin Press.
- Sadurski, W. (2019). Poland’s Constitutional Breakdown. Oxford University Press.
- Shirer, W. L. (1960). The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Simon & Schuster.
- Söyler, M. (2015). The Turkish Deep State: State Consolidation, Civil-Military Relations and Democracy. Routledge.
- Varshney, A. (2022). “India’s Democratic Recession: Majoritarianism and Institutional Decay.” Foreign Affairs.
- Watts, J. (2021). “Operation Car Wash and Brazil’s Judicial Overreach.” Latin American Politics and Society.
