Totalitarianism

A state is totalitarian if it permits no *autonomous institutions, i.e. if the aims, activities and membership
of all *associations are subject to the *control of the state. For this to be the case freedom of association
cannot be permitted – and it is significant that the value of this freedom is doubted both by *Hobbes and
by *Rousseau, two thinkers who offer arguments useful to totalitarian government, despite the fact that
totalitarianism, as distinct from *absolutism and *autocracy, is a distinctly twentieth-century invention.
Complete state control of the means of communication is also essential, together with an *ideology (sense
1.); for the sole origin of all legitimation is the state itself, there being no autonomous institutions, such
as church, universities, clubs and societies, through which respect for the civil order can be
independently inculcated. If such institutions exist it is only by permission of the state, and in accordance
with strict instructions from the state. Totalitarianism is not necessarily violent, but it is frequently
argued to be unjust, since it involves encroachment by the state on many *natural rights, and an abolition
of all forms of society that are not coerced from above. This ‘withering away of society’ often takes place
under a rule that promises the *withering away of the state. It is, however, disputed that *collectivization,
or *social ownership, or any other aim of communist and related systems, in itself requires totalitarian
government. Totalitarianism is a matter of degree, and much academic study has been devoted to
distinguishing its sub- varieties. In all versions, however, the fundamental feature is that of central
control, usually through a *party.

Fascism
From Latin: fasces, the bundle of rods with a projecting axe-head, carried before the consuls as a sign of
the state authority of Rome, and adopted as a symbol of social unity (the bundle) under political
leadership (the axe). The name was given by Mussolini to the movement which he led to power in Italy
in 1922, but is now used more widely, to include German *Nazism, and Spanish *falangism, on the basis
more of a common *ethos than a common *doctrine. Fascism is characterized by the following features
(not all of which need be present in any of its recognized instances): *corporatism; *nationalism; hostility
to *democracy, to *egalitarianism, and to the values of liberal *enlightenment; the cult of the *leader, and
admiration for his special qualities; a respect for collective organization, and a love of the symbols
associated with it, such as uniforms, parades and army discipline. In Germany the cult of *violence,
together with a violent *anti-Semitism, were added to these features, with notorious results. The *anti-
communist and anti-liberal stance of fascist movements, together with the loathsomeness of many actual
examples, have made the fight against fascism a rallying point for left and liberal causes, so that the label
‘fascist’ may often be applied very loosely, to denote almost any doctrine that conflicts with left-liberal
ideology. In this expletive use the term conveys no very clear idea, a fact which perhaps explains its
popularity. From the intellectual point of view fascism remains an amalgam of disparate conceptions,
often ill-under- stood, often bizarre. It is more notable as a political phenomenon on which diverse
intellectual influences converge than as a distinct idea; as a political phenomenon, one of its most
remarkable features has been the ability to win massive popular support for ideas that are expressly anti-
egalitarian (see *Reich). Mussolini’s own ideas were derived from a heady mixture of popular science,
*Marx, *Sorel and *Nietzsche. He advocated regeneration through conquest and perpetual struggle, and
spoke, in speeches seething with sexual imagery, of the need to overcome degeneracy and impotence, to
make sacrifices for the nation, and to connect to the great ‘dynamo’ of fascism. Fascists are ‘not
republicans, socialists, democrats, conservatives or nationalists. They represent a synthesis of all the
negations and the affirmations.’ In other words, the ultimate doctrine contains little that is specific,
beyond an appeal to energy and action: it is, one might say, the form of an *ideology, but without specific
content (other than can be provided by admiration towards the leader). This perhaps explains some of
its appeal; it seemed to make no demand other than those which the individual himself would make had
he the energy. It then provided the energy.

In.: The Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Political Thought