Abstract

This paper examines a recurrent paradox in contemporary intellectual and creative collaborations: individuals who profess strong hostility to fascism or coercive domination in theory may nonetheless attempt to assert disproportionate control over the labor, property, or authorship of others in practice. When a party seeks majority control over work overwhelmingly created by another, the contradiction reveals not merely hypocrisy but a deeper formation failure.

The phenomenon is analyzed as a species of moral-linguistic displacement, constraint evasion, and soft expropriation, in which ideological vocabulary substitutes for concrete institutional safeguards. The result is behavior functionally similar to the very coercive systems ostensibly condemned. The paper argues that anti-authoritarian commitments without procedural discipline and property realism tend to reproduce domination at the interpersonal scale.

I. Problem Statement

In certain collaborations, one observes the following pattern:

One party produces the overwhelming majority of the intellectual labor and material output. Another party contributes marginally but seeks decisive or controlling ownership. The latter frequently deploys moral or political language condemning “fascism,” “control,” or “authoritarianism.” Despite this rhetoric, their practical demands center on unilateral leverage over assets not created by them.

The mismatch between rhetoric and conduct raises a diagnostic question:

How does a person who denounces domination in theory come to practice expropriation in person?

This paper treats the issue as structural rather than psychological, focusing on formation and institutional design failures.

II. Conceptual Framework

1. Fascism as Structure vs. Fascism as Word

Historically and analytically, fascism involves:

concentration of control, subordination of individual property or autonomy, forced alignment under a central will, and the moralization of coercion.

These are structural behaviors, not merely labels.

When “fascism” is reduced to a rhetorical insult rather than defined by structural features, individuals may condemn the word while reproducing the structure.

Thus:

Rhetorical anti-fascism without procedural safeguards easily coexists with practical authoritarianism.

2. Property Realism

Creative and intellectual work follows a basic institutional logic:

labor creates claim, authorship establishes ownership, ownership establishes control, control should scale with contribution.

When control scales independently of contribution, the relationship becomes extractive.

Seeking 80% control over 1%–20% contribution is not collaboration; it is appropriation.

3. Soft Coercion

In modern knowledge institutions, coercion is rarely physical. Instead it appears as:

reputational pressure, moral accusations, social leverage, appeals to ideology, claims of visionary authority, or guilt-based framing.

These mechanisms allow control without overt force.

The outcome, however, is similar:

one party’s agency is subordinated to another’s will.

III. Failure Modes

Several recurring failure types explain the gap between theory and practice.

A. Moral Substitution Failure

Definition:

Abstract moral claims replace concrete ethical discipline.

Instead of asking:

Who did the work? Who holds rights? What agreements exist?

The actor asks:

Who seems morally righteous? Who frames themselves as aligned with justice?

This permits entitlement divorced from contribution.

Result: moral narrative overrides property reality.

B. Contribution Blindness

Definition:

Inability or unwillingness to quantify effort, time, or authorship.

Where labor accounting is absent, emotional or ideological claims fill the vacuum.

This produces:

inflated self-assessment, minimization of others’ effort, belief that “vision” outweighs execution.

Control becomes detached from measurable production.

C. Instrumental Anti-Authoritarianism

Definition:

Opposition to domination only when one is not the one dominating.

Such actors reject external authority but eagerly accept their own authority.

This is not anti-authoritarianism; it is selective sovereignty.

They resist being ruled but seek to rule.

D. Entitlement Drift

Definition:

Gradual inflation of claim without corresponding labor.

Common justifications include:

“strategic direction,” “curation,” “brand ownership,” “emotional investment,” “idea generation.”

While these have value, they do not justify majority ownership of another’s corpus.

Without boundaries, entitlement drifts toward totalization.

E. Ideological Masking

Definition:

Political language used to disguise personal advantage seeking.

Terms such as “collective,” “justice,” or “anti-fascism” become tools of leverage rather than principles of restraint.

This produces a moral shield:

criticism appears unjust, resistance appears selfish, defense of property appears reactionary.

The rhetoric protects extraction.

IV. Structural Parallels with the Systems They Condemn

Ironically, the behaviors described mirror the dynamics of the systems denounced.

Ideological Fascism

Interpersonal Expropriation

Centralized control

Majority ownership demands

Subordination of property

Disregard for authorship rights

Moralized coercion

“You’re unjust if you refuse”

Personal will as law

Unilateral decision authority

Erasure of contribution differences

“Everything is collective” framing

The scale differs; the structure does not.

This can be described as micro-authoritarianism.

V. Formation Analysis

The deeper issue is not political ideology but formation.

1. Lack of Institutional Literacy

Without training in:

contracts, ownership structures, rights, contribution accounting,

people default to emotional or ideological reasoning.

Institutions require procedure, not vibes.

2. Confusion of Vision with Ownership

Some equate:

having ideas, talking about projects, or associating with work

with owning the work.

But intellectual production historically follows craft logic:

creation precedes claim.

Without this discipline, “inspiration” becomes a license to appropriate.

3. Aversion to Boundaries

Formal rights and contracts feel “cold” or “legalistic,” so they are avoided.

But boundaries protect both parties.

When boundaries disappear, stronger personalities dominate.

Ironically, the rejection of structure creates the very coercion feared.

VI. Diagnostic Criteria

The presence of this failure can be identified when:

control demanded far exceeds contribution, ownership claims are vague or ideological rather than contractual, moral language replaces accounting, resistance is framed as betrayal rather than negotiation, “collective” rhetoric appears only when advantageous.

When these markers cluster, the system has shifted from collaboration to extraction.

VII. Remedial Practices

Institutional countermeasures include:

A. Explicit Contribution Accounting

Documented authorship percentages.

B. Predefined Rights Structures

Ownership aligned to measurable labor.

C. Written Agreements

Clarity prevents later reinterpretation.

D. Separation of Ideology from Governance

Moral beliefs should inform behavior, not replace procedure.

E. Constraint Realism

No one controls what they did not build.

VIII. Conclusion

The contradiction between anti-fascist rhetoric and expropriative behavior is not unusual. It emerges whenever:

moral language substitutes for institutional discipline, entitlement substitutes for contribution, and ideology substitutes for accounting.

In such cases, individuals may sincerely believe themselves opposed to domination while simultaneously practicing it at smaller scales.

The lesson is structural rather than political:

Anti-authoritarian outcomes depend less on declared beliefs and more on enforceable constraints.

Without procedure, even those who speak the loudest against coercion may reproduce it.

Institutions that wish to avoid this paradox must anchor control to labor, rights to creation, and governance to clear boundaries. Anything less invites moralized extraction under the banner of virtue.