The Totalitarian ideal of the politics and ideology of the state residing in the hands of a single leader follows the principles of Nietzsche’s “ubermensch”, in which a society can produce one individual who demonstrates higher qualities than any other members of that society. This “superman” would demonstrate his superior will to power by rising above the herd like quality of most other people. He would stand above all concepts of good and evil: all that concerns him is the ability to act and inspire others to act in a decisive way. This connotes a reference to Social Darwinism, in which great leadership is not born from rational procedural, such as democratic elections, but from a great struggle for power, in which the strongest candidate emerges victorious, Hitler identifies this concept in the words, “Mankind has grown strong in eternal struggles and it will only perish through eternal peace.”
From this one can draw a parallel to Fascism; the rejection of democracy clearly a prominent value shared by both. This rejection or opposition to democracy could be referenced to the social, economic and cultural climate of the time, in the era of the emergence of Fascism, around the 1920’s, democracy in most European
countries suffered a series of major crises between the two world wars. Having survived a strong challenge from Communism and Revolutionary Socialism after the First World War, Europe like the USA was struck by the Great Depression, democratic governments struggled to deal with the crisis of economic decline.
The political systems in countries such as Germany and Italy were pluralistic in nature, with multi-party scenarios inhibiting any true exercise of dominance. Fascism arrived on the scene, supplying the answers to many of these problems. Its leaders appeared strong and dynamic, whereas liberal democratic politicians were weak and lacked vision. The Fascists looked forward to a promised future and greater glories, the democrats were backward looking and negative in their attitude. Above all Fascists were able to inspire a popular following on the basis of their message and personal qualities, while other politicians seemed to be slaves to constantly shifting public opinion. From this we saw the rise of the most historically relevant Fascists, among them Hitler and Mussolini.
To summate the above points, one could argue Fascism is Totalitarian in nature by from the way in which it arose from a rejection to Social-Democracies and its proliferation of a strong, decisive leadership. This concept is embodied in the words of Hitler, “Sooner will a camel pass through a needle’s eye than a great man be discovered by an election.”
Both Fascism and Totalitarianism accept the need for the will of the people to be behind a regime, for it to be successful. Simplifying the issue somewhat, it could be conceived that there are two ways in which evidence suggests this was achieved; the propagating and indoctrination of society, Hitler -“By the skilful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.” “The art of leadership... consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention.”
Or an armed, military scare tactic, in which brute force is used to coerce the people through a specific agenda, Stalin - “Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach.” “The only real power comes out of a long rifle.”
It is more likely that both of these points go hand in hand, as one would assume to evolve all public information outlets, including the educational system, to a singular leader would either require a large military backing, or a democratic mandate to do so, something both Fascism and Totalitarianism would reject.
One would think the will of the people would be best represented through democracy, however both ideologies argue on the distorted principles of Rousseau’s “General Will”. Rousseau considered the shortcomings of a populist democratic system, a system that at the time was a possible replacement for monarchical governments. Democracy, Rousseau argued, would tend to develop into majority rule; this however, would not necessarily serve the best interests of the people collectively. Indeed, he mistrusted any political system based on one’s self-interest. Rousseau concluded that the people had a collective identity that superseded mere self-interest. An individual leader would be identified; this leader would understand the collective interests of the people and govern the state accordingly. Therefore from this concept Totalitarian and Fascist leaders have grounds for claiming a form of demagogic democracy through embodying the “general will” of the people. Hitler referred to the social conscious of the people of Germany as “volksgemienschaft”.
In reference to the question, the above points make the statement that Fascism, in its nature follows the Totalitarian principle, in which that one can govern “for” the people and in their best interest, by actively eliminating their say in the way they wish to be governed.
For the imposition of “general will” to be successful, all opposition needs to be obliterated. Fascists believe pluralism undoubtedly provides an outlet for ones self-interest, ergo undermining the state and its leader. Stalin’s words, “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.” Clearly identify his willingness to remove the rights of his opposition to speak out against Fascism, thus ensuring the propagated “general will” can prosper both unrivalled and unscrutinised.
Both the Totalitarian and Fascists principles of unrivalled governance, lead to the formulation of “Gleichschaltung.” A state in which all aspects of society come under the ideology of Fascism. Using the example of Nazism, Hitler identified the need to remove the idea that the Church was of a different echelon of society. He aimed to ground the Church, and by doing so elevate his persona to that of a demi-god, allowing him access to a “divine mandate.” A metaphysical justification for his actions, dissociated from the will of the people. He seeked to do this via the formation of a concordat with the Catholic and Protestant Churches, the later of the two not achieved. However it was a somewhat hollow alliance, as although Nazism had large support within the Catholic Church, it was viewed that, illustrated by the words of a Bishop, “If we sign the concordat we are hung, if we do not sign it, we are hung, drawn and quartered.” That the concordat was inevitable given the degrees to which Gleichschaltung had occurred after the introduction of the 1930 Ermächtigungsgesetz, or Enabling Act, policies including the and to the likes of “Gesetz gegen die Neubildung von Parteien” or the law against the establishment of political parties.
A final similarity between both ideologies is the rejection of ration thought, arguably founded on the works of Henri-Louis Bergson a major
, influential especially in the first half of the . Bergson convinced many thinkers that immediate experience and are more significant than and for understanding .
To conclude the evidence seems to suggest that both Fascism and Totalitarianism are formulated on autocratic values evinced in their advocation of the fecundity of avarice to hegemonic, monolithic states of dirigisme. Not only this, but one could argue that Fascism is dependant on Totalitarianism as a pre-requisite to success as one assumes that without concepts of “general will” and “ubermensch”, the populous would inveigh at any signs of the removal of their individual rights, and centralisation of powers.
We can also conclude that both Fascism and Totalitarianism use extensive propagating of social society to bend the will of the people to their own, Hitler – “All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.” Coupled with this Fascism is Totalitarian in its nature to reject and overhaul democracy seeing it as weak, indecisive and inefficient and its regard the national interest. And secondly, arguably the greatest from of indoctrinating the people, is establishing a profound, irrational sense of patriotism, in which the people blindly follow the leadership with little regard for the reasons why, Hitler identified the importance of this, referencing government
in the words, “How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.” However it is easily tangible to the minds of the people.
Fascism usually extends this point to create the concept of a dominant race. A race that should enter in eternal conflict until it proves triumphant over all the others, Hitler – “Mankind has grown strong in eternal struggles and it will only perish through eternal peace.” “Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.” The proliferation of war is essentially a means of consolidating the people’s patriotism and intrinsically branding it within society as a necessity to fend off the countless opposition, thusly reducing the intellectual opposition to government and encouraging cronyism. Totalitarianism does not advocate such, but it is arguably the platform thinkers such as Hitler used to formulate such ideals.
James Clemmow
Fascism & Totalitarianism
Mr. Hale