The Definition of Totalitarianism[1] Like that of fascism, the definition of totalitarianism is complicated by the widespread abuse of the term. Both words are commonly used as ad hominem (i.e., personal) attacks on whomever or whatever one dislikes. Moreover, both words appear in language around the same time, fascist in 1921 and totalitarian in 1926 in reference to Italian fascism.1 It is clear, then, that the meanings of totalitarianism and fascism are closely related. But are they the same? [2] What can scarcely be disputed is that totalitarianism and fascism refer to tyrannical ideologies. The two historical nations most commonly associated with these terms are the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Indeed, if a visitor from another galaxy were to have arrived on Earth in the mid-twentieth century and compared the two societies, he or she may well have struggled to see a difference. [3] Curiously, however, many people seem to see quite a substantial difference between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, and between Hitler and Stalin. For example, at present, it is fashionable among young people to wear Soviet clothing, whereas to wear Nazi clothing is nothing less than a "hate crime." The hammer and sickle are "cool," whereas the swastika is not. In Germany, a peculiar social phenomenon dubbed ostalgie celebrates life as it was in Soviet-occupied East Germany. [4] Along this fashionable fault line seems to lie the difference between the definition of totalitarianism and that of fascism. The sort of society idealized by young Westerners is not the fascism of Hitler, Mussolini, or Franco, but the communism found in the Soviet Union, China, or Cuba. In the former cases, tyranny became personified in a single person and did not manage to survive beyond his life; in the latter cases, tyranny became institutionalized in a single party system, easily outliving Stalin and Mao Zedong at least, and possibly Fidel Castro as well. [5] The quintessential totalitarian society is that found in George Orwell's 1984, which Orwell modeled on the Soviet Union. The definition of totalitarian, then, is not only closely related to fascism but to communism as well. But here, a problem arises: The fascism of Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco was a reaction against communism. Franco famously declared that to save Spain from communism, he was prepared to shoot half the country.2 [6] If communist societies are essentially totalitarian, then fascism and totalitarianism cannot be synonyms because fascism and communism are diametrically opposed. And yet, as we have already observed, fascism and totalitarianism are often used interchangeably to refer to the same types of societies. [7] The difference would seem to be largely conceptual. If the definition of fascism is the tyranny of one over all, the definition of totalitarianism may be said to be the tyranny of all over one. Let us see how they are different and how they are similar. Totalitarianism vs Fascism[8] Given that young Westerners have never been taught economics and often lack any concept of scarcity, the appeal of totalitarianism should not be surprising. For totalitarianism represents "perfect equality" on the political spectrum, which is equality in the most literal possible sense of the word: An equality in which everyone is exactly the same. This has an irresistible appeal to many affluent young Westerners who have grown up believing that resources are essentially infinite and that people are essentially identical.[9] Unfortunately, resources are not infinite and, while everyone certainly has equal rights and equal worth as a human being, people differ quite radically from one another in talents, intelligence, feelings, judgment, and opinions. For "perfect equality" to exist, these differences must be eradicated. Society as a whole must impose itself on those who dare to be different. As the ideologue Ayn Rand put it, "There is only one instrument that can create an equality of this kind: A gun."3 [10] The tyranny of all over one is not merely the definition of totalitarianism, but the definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat, a universal staple of communism. From a Marxian perspective, the dictatorship can hardly be called a tyranny at all, since average workers ("proletarians") represent the vast majority of humankind and find themselves oppressed by a tiny fraction of the populace who control the world's capital (the "bourgeoisie"). The bourgeoisie are, in other words, fascists. [11] Ironically, then, totalitarianism and fascism are tyrannies which claim to be combating tyranny through tyranny: Totalitarianism creates "perfect equality" as a reaction against fascism, whereas fascism institutes "perfect freedom" against totalitarianism. Fascists and totalitarians are ultimately people who, like Franco, are prepared to eradicate humankind in order to save it from eradication. Such logic might actually be funny if it weren't so historically successful. [12] Although the definition of totalitarianism differs from the definition of fascism, the difference is, no doubt, meaningless to anyone with the misfortune of living in so hellish a society. But the difference is nevertheless important, because if we are to avoid tyranny ourselves, we must understand the two paths that lead there. [13] Totalitarianism promises equality beneath the rule of a revolutionary party, the leader of which assumes the absolute power of the state. In so far as everyone else in the state is essentially held to be nothing, everyone is thus equal. Fascism seeks to install absolute power in a "great person," in whom perfect freedom, namely the freedom to do anything humanly possible without opposition, becomes manifest. [14] Of course, totalitarianism and fascism are merely two sides of the same coin. As such, the political spectrum is perhaps best seen as a circle. 2008
|
