Fascism and Totalitarianism

4 April 2008

How do fascists actually gain power?

• Polarization between left and right– On the left: “Heightening the contradictions”– On the right and left: Discrediting the liberal state (selective

violence, blackmail, etc.)– This leads to an open or latent alliance between conservatives

and fascists

• Growth of the fascist vote through their ability to capture newly available “political space”– Use of new techniques of mass mobilization and propaganda

• Mistakes by elites– E.g., conservative elites misunderstood the degree to which they

could control fascists

The distinctiveness of fascist dictatorship

• What seems distinctive about fascist dictatorships (“fascism in power”: Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Italy)?– Scale of their crimes– Ideological basis– Mass support– Other?

Some questions about fascism in power

• Were fascist dictatorships an uniquely new form of government?– Yes: fascist dictatorships (fascism in power) constituted a

significantly new form of government, very different from “traditional” forms of dictatorship

– No: they were just a more extreme version of other forms of traditional dictatorship

• Were (some) fascist and communist dictatorships both varieties of that new form of government?– Yes: (some) fascist and communist dictatorships, despite

ideological differences, shared a common structure that accounts for their radical crimes and pathologies

– No: ideological and institutional differences make it unfruitful to say that fascist and communist dictatorships were “essentially the same thing”

Fascism and totalitarianism

• Theoretically, the idea of totalitarianism responds to:– The uniqueness of fascist dictatorships– The similarities of fascist dictatorships to

other regimes: e.g., Russia under Stalin

Fascism, communism, and totalitarianism

• The academic concept has cold war roots (though Mussolini invented the term), and hence is hotly contested – An attempt to subsume ideological dictatorships of the left and

the right under a single umbrella– Associated with aggressive policies against the Soviet Union

• There is no general agreement about the regimes to which it applies– Arendt: it applies to Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Russia, and perhaps

a few other places, but not many– Linz: it designates certain mass-based dictatorships, and applies

quite generally• There is agreement that totalitarian regimes, if they exist,

must be distinguished from “traditional” dictatorships

The “totalitarian” system: Arendt

• Totalitarian domination is “total” in the sense that it completely extinguishes freedom

• Totalitarian states have a number of institutional and ideological features that distinguish them from superficially similar forms of government

The Arendtian model of totalitarianism

• The dual (or “multiple”) state– Party institutions in constant competition with

state institutions– Different from “traditional” party dictatorships

in which the party captures the state and uses it for its purposes without duplicating its structure outside the state

• Isn’t this quite inefficient, even chaotic?

The Arendtian model of totalitarianism

• Leadership– Destruction of horizontal and intermediate

links within the party and population: the leader as the “hub” of the system

– Institutionalized chaos– Traditional dictatorships by contrast generally

have a “hierarchical” structure

The Arendtian model of totalitarianism

• Ideology– The system is geared towards preserving the logic

(consistency) of ideas (“ideology”), not for responding to reality: the “fictitious world” has precedence over the “real world”

– All aspects of life become “politicized” through ideological discourse: there are no private spheres

– At the same time, there are no stable “ideas” to hold on to: the party line is always changeable

– Traditional dictatorships are not “ideological” in this sense: dictators are pragmatic individuals interested in power, money, and the like, and they are not interested in politicizing every aspect of life. They use ideology in order to legitimize themselves.

The Arendtian model of totalitarianism

• Terror– Terror is used in apparently non-utilitarian ways (that

is, terror is uncorrelated with political opposition): notion of “objective enemies”

– The central institutions of totalitarian dictatorships are the secret police, the show trial, and the concentration camp

– In traditional dictatorships repression is correlated with political opposition (it is seen as a cost), and there are no “objective enemies,” only “suspects” (whose guilt has to be established)

The Arendtian model of totalitarianism

• Mass support– Totalitarian regimes always retain significant

mass support through the replacement of institutions of accountability with institutions of mass affirmation and mobilization (rallies, etc.), and they seek to consistently mobilize the population for ideological projects

– Traditional dictatorships generally (though not always) seek to demobilize, not to mobilize, the population

Arendt’s implication about totalitarianism

• Aggressiveness– The totalitarian regime inherently aims for

world domination– The totalitarian movement does not respond

to standard utilitarian and pragmatic considerations

– Totalitarian regimes are uniquely dangerous

Summary

• Institutions: dual state and centrality of leader

• Ideology: institutions geared towards maintaining ideological consistency, not merely “indoctrinating”

• Non-utilitarian use of terror

• Mobilization of the masses

Fascism, communism, and totalitarianism

• Institutional similarities• Ideological differences

– The Nazi regime was based on a racialist ideology of inequality– Stalin’s regime was based on a Marxist ideology of equality

• Contextual differences– In Germany, there were concentrations of economic and other

power that could never be entirely eliminated by the Nazis and required alliances and adjustments

• The concept may give a false image of the degree of domination actually achieved

• Comparable, though not identical, crimes– The Nazis engaged in the deliberate genocide of millions– Stalin (and Mao, and Pol Pot) killed millions too, but often in

more indirect ways (as the “byproduct” of other policies)

Fascism, communism, and crimes against humanity

• Do similar regime and state structures partially explain these crimes in both cases?

Totalitarian regimes and non-democracies

• Are totalitarian regimes fundamentally different from other non-democracies?– No: totalitarian regimes are different only in

degree from other dictatorships– Yes: the ensemble of ideology and institutions

that characterizes these regimes made possible unthinkable crimes and the pursuit of genuinely absolute power

Alternatives

• Why not speak of “mobilizing dictatorships” or “ideological dictatorships” instead?

• Why not speak of “political religion”?

• Why insist that totalitarian regimes must be uniquely aggressive?

Totalitarianism, communism, and fascism

• Are there any regimes today that can be properly classified as totalitarian?

• How should we behave towards these regimes?