TSR Wiki > Study Help > Subjects and Revision > Revision Notes > Politics > In what ways were fascism and Nazism totalitarian in nature?
In what ways were fascism and Nazism totalitarian in nature?
The terms ‘fascism’ and ‘totalitarian’ are often linked, and in some cases assume one begets the other. However, this is disputable. Also, the question raises to issues that require clarification, the meaning of totalitarianism, and the distinction between fascism and Nazism.
A totalitarian state is one that claims to have total authority and control over every aspect of its citizen’s lives. According to McNaughton, a totalitarian state will show most, if not all, of the following seven characteristics: state control over citizen’s lives, no distinction between public and private life, a lack of pluralism, a single ruling elite or dictator, the use of terror, and the use of mass psychology and propaganda.
Nazism is arguable the most notorious form of fascism. It of course derives from National Socialism, and fascist government that ruled over Germany from 1933-1945. Nazism was a lot more racially focused than the Fascist National Party of Mussolini’s Italy. Some historians argue that the Nazi form of fascism was less totalitarian than other regimes. Public groups such as trade unions, business groups and youth organisations were tolerated, as long as they did not promote anything banned by the party. And of course, millions were sentenced to death, but the Aryan Germans of the time lived relatively free as long as they served the Reich when they where summoned.
Firstly, we must point out that not all fascist regimes were totalitarian. Fascist dictatorships lasted into the 1970’s in Spain and Portugal, but without such aggression and terror of the war year regimes. It may be more appropriate then to describe these regimes as autocracies instead of totalitarian.
It is true that both fascism and totalitarianism have very similar theoretical origins. Ideas such as the general will, the organic state and the Übermensch both provide a theoretical basis for fascism, and in turn a support for totalitarian rule. The French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that a nation has a general will, a collective identity that stood above self-interest. As democracy is based on fulfilment of self-interest, Rousseau instead argued that a philosopher leader would rise up to take control. To the fascists then, this meant that totalitarian dictatorship was justified, as only the leader could understand and embody the collective will. This is closely tied to Hegel’s idea of an organic society, although it is often argued that Hegel’s ideas were wrongly interpreted by fascists as a justification for totalitarian rule.
Another philosophical bastardisation used by fascist thinkers was that of Nietzche’s ‘Übermensch’ or superman. Nietzche had written that some individuals were endowed with superior will and imagination, and therefor would naturally tend to dominate society. This was developed into the idea of the superman by later fascist thinkers and propagandists. Nietzche was in no way a fascist himself, predating the movement by several decades, and did not suggest that all-powerful, totalitarian dictators should rule nations.
Hanna Arendt studied similarities between fascism and Soviet totalitarianism. She found several key areas that linked the two. Firstly both styles of regime had bureaucracies designed to organise terror. The final solution in Germany was carried out to legal codes and regulations, and the Fascist National Party had a large bureaucratic level for ensuring the state never lost its grip on power. Arendt also saw the use of mass psychology and key to totalitarian rule. Because fascism was reliant on romanticism more than logic, the ability to manipulate the people to ideas and actions was critical. An emotional sense of duty to the state replaced people’s allegiances to other social movements. The NSDAP idealised the Volk, championing classical arts that portrayed the Germans as agricultural, hard working peoples. This was the Germany to which the people belonged, not to the decedent and degenerate type state of the Weimar years. Mussolini constantly returned to the glories of the Roman Empire, and cut huge swathes into Italian towns to reveal the relics of the past. Fascism would bring all this back he argued, as long as the party line was unwaiveringly toed.
In conclusion then, from the criteria set out by McNaughton as discussed above, one could easily mistake it for a checklist of fascist rule. The one powerful leader, who embodies the general will of the nation, therefor fully justified in invading all areas of public and private life for the ‘greater good’. The use of terror and violence against enemies of the state and the removal of pluralism. Mass psychology and propaganda used to great effect, forever hailing the grand leader and manipulating the people. The subverting of self-interest for the collective will. In these ways then, fascism and Nazism were very much totalitarian in nature.
Comments
This essay is aimed at people studying for A Level Politics, but will be suitable for other people too.
Originally submitted by sav on TSR Forums.
