Imagine trying to debate the differences between cats and dogs with someone. But throw in one caveat: neither you nor your fellow debater know what a cat or dog is. Any kind of discussion on the playfulness of canines versus the cold demeanor of felines becomes mute. The whole dialogue devolves into meaninglessness.In the context of political economy, many of the common pejoratives in today’s lexicon have become overused to the same point of meaninglessness. Recently in the pages of Taki’s Mag, Jim Goad brings attention to the term “fascist” and its all-too-common use in typical debate. It’s a pointed argument, but it misinterprets the function of words and their meaning.Anyone who has ever lodged a complaint about government has probably been called a “fascist” at one time or another. It’s the go-to term for anyone too dim to come up with a respectable counterargument. Think the government taxes too much? Obviously you’re a fascist. Think that giving people free money creates an incentive to not find suitable work? Clearly, you’re a gigantic fascist. Think people should behave like civilized beings on the metro? Well then, you’re King Fascist.That’s about the scope of debate with your average political commenter. When pushed to the point of exhaustion after having their statist ideology punched through with proverbial holes, the average government interventionist resorts to petulant name-calling. “Fascist” happens to be the term used the most, with other accusations like “hating the poor” and “shilling for big business” not far behind.We know from the law of diminishing returns that overuse of anything takes away from its relevance; so it makes sense that the willy-nilly use of “fascist” has rendered the term virtually meaningless. Recently on the shock-and-awe news site Salon, another confused leftist incorrectly denounces superhero movies for starring “a bunch of fascists.” Costumed vigilantes like Superman and Batman apparently exert too much control on the little people for the author’s tastes. Therefore, they are fascists for having a greater moral fortitude than the masses. It would be sad; except arguments like this often get plenty of susceptible “clicks.”Goad sees the issue as nothing more than an effort to score cheap points in a debate. For him, arguing over various forms of government rarely gets you anywhere. The debate by itself is riddled with incoherency because politics is a relativist’s game when it comes to true meaning. He writes,

[P]roblem is, the word “fascism” has no inherent meaning. Despite their erudition, most would-be politicos and history buffs seem too dim to understand that political terms bear no fixed and eternal meaning. All political terms are social constructs and thus hold no objective value.

There is some truth to this statement. Political concepts are indeed social constructs; seeing as how politics is unneeded for a man in total isolation. When speaking of “socialism,” “interventionism,” or “communism,” it means nothing unless there are others to partake in the system.But the fact that things are social constructs doesn’t automatically disqualify them from inherent meaning. Words by themselves mean something. They might switch definitions over time, but at any given moment, there should be a set interpretation for a word. Otherwise, language and communication become impossible. If words mean everything, then that everything means nothing.When someone says “democracy,” it should be taken as communal decision making, or more crudely, one person with one vote. “Communism” means the abolition of private property and public ownership over all goods and land. “Statism” is the ideology that gives deference to monopoly government for all matters. And “fascism” is supposed to mean an economic and governing system where the state essentially controls society from behind the veil of private property. Lew Rockwell best summed up fascism by calling it a “system of government that cartelizes the private sector” and “centrally plans the economy to subsidize producers.”So “fascism” does have a meaning. Throwing the term around as a pejorative for anyone who irks you is a mistake. Fascism might exist insomuch as we say it does, but it’s a real word that pertains to a certain definition.The science around the nature of “social constructs” is largely to blame for the confusion. Social constructs are, as one commenter puts it, “a sort of figment of our collective imagination.” Is that necessarily true? Yes and no. Sure, things like political systems are defined by what society as a whole decides and accepts. But regardless, the actions taken by a governing body are real. And it’s those tangible acts that provide the entire basis for the construct.Saying social constructs have no inherent meaning undermines the very real aspects of its beginning. And perhaps worse, it muddles common understanding of language because terms used to define and understand the world start losing their meaning as well.Calling “fascism” a fantasy we project on each other doesn’t make an overly aggressive government go away. When a group of non-violent protestors are being beaten to a bloody pulp by police wielding truncheons, you don’t say “Hey! Don’t worry! The government violence inflicted upon you right now is a figment of your imagination; so buck up!”There is a definite meaning to descriptions of government power and the violation of rights. The same applies to economics as well. The fact that terms such as “free market” or “liberalism” arise based on society’s interpretation doesn’t reduce them to imaginative playthings. The meaning behind them plays a significant role in the lives of individuals and our collective understanding.I’ve long suspected that citing “social constructs” and the meaninglessness of certain concepts is all a ruse by folks who want to impose their will on everyone else. All they need is an excuse; playing hot potato with words is a good way to confuse the hapless into going along with spur-of-the-moment tyranny.It’s the confusion in language that is responsible for government’s ever-gaining strength. You can’t protect your rights if you don’t understand what a right is, just as you can’t demand liberty unless you understand what freedom entails. Progressives have mastered the art of deception through relativism. Taking a stand for truth, reality, and meaning is the only way to parry the assault.{Editor's Note: For more on the historical origin of "fascism", check out my podcast interview with Prof. Carlo Celli on the fascist economics of Mussolini. }

James E. Miller is editor-in-chief of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada, where this article was originally published.

Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!