Fascism and Its Totalitarian Siblings: What Are They and How Dangerous Are They Today?

In our polarized world, the words fascist, totalitarian, communist, and Nazi are often thrown around to smear and disqualify political views and their proponents. In addition to the damage the resulting loss of meaning does to our language, knowledge of civics, and political discourse, it hurts our ability to recognize and react to serious societal threats should they appear on the horizon. In this article, I propose a concise framework for thinking about different types of totalitarianism. The framework should be useful in restoring some sense to our current conversations and in identifying and responding to potential threats we may face in the future. I chose not to burden the text with references because the relevant literature is vast, and the reader can easily look up any assumption or fact embedded in the arguments.

Totalitarianism

As its name suggests, totalitarianism is characterized by the presence of a group, typically led by a strong leader, that has total control over all important levers of power including the police, the military, the courts, etc. This group also controls the economy and major resources for two reasons. First, people like money, and political power is easily monetized. Second, even if getting rich is an ideological taboo among the ruling group, allowing others to control the economy or to become independently wealthy is likely to challenge the group’s hold on power. Political and economic control reinforce each other. The more economic resources one controls, the more one can enhance one’s political power by funding police forces, surveillance, etc. and by controlling the population via payments and incentives. The more political power one holds, the more one can grab resources via taxation or outright expropriation.

Figure 1: The four mutually reinforcing characteristics of totalitarianism.

The desire to preserve political power is also likely to lead the ruling group to crack down on free speech, political rights, economic freedoms, and even some private property rights. The crackdown is likely to further solidify the group’s political and economic power as checks on it are weakened. A totalitarian society is hence characterized by (1) centralized political power with few checks and balances, (2) centralized economic power with few restrictions on what it is allowed to do, (3) suppression of free speech and political rights, and (4) erosion of individual property rights and economic freedoms. The two types of power and the two types of individual rights that are eroded in totalitarian societies are shown in figure 1.

The four mutually reinforcing characteristics of totalitarianism can be used to examine and compare different regimes. The world is rich and diverse. It offers many examples on a continuum from liberal democracies that check none of the four boxes to murderous dictatorships that fill each to the top. Discerning common patterns and differences among totalitarian regimes helps us better understand the past and the present. It also helps us detect early warning signs of totalitarianism and respond to them before things spin out of control.

Informed users of the term fascism think of it as merger of state and corporate power. I propose that this definition, derived from Mussolini’s own statements, is too broad because it applies to too many different regimes. Isn’t a communist state like the Soviet Union one giant corporation in which political and economic power are fully integrated? Aren’t Zimbabwe and Saudi Arabia fascist states according to this definition as well? It seems appropriate to call all these regimes totalitarian and to reserve the label fascism for a particular type of totalitarianism, which I get to below.

I propose a classification of totalitarian regimes based on the driving force behind the merger of state and corporate power. There are three general cases: (1) when those with economic power co-opt or acquire political power, (2) when those with political power co-opt or acquire economic power, and (3) when economic and political elites jointly push for the merger. Given the history of the term fascism, I believe that it best fits the first case.

Fascism - Totalitarianism Originating in Economic Power

It is often neglected but important to note that Mussolini’s regime from which the term fascism originates arose largely in response to the communist threat that arose in Italy in the aftermath of World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. In 1920, workers took over several enterprises including FIAT’s car factory in Turin. Given the state’s inability or unwillingness to take decisive action, it should not be surprising that Italian industrialists and landowners turned to and supported fascists to defend their property and social status. Mussolini’s acquisition of dictatorial powers in 1923 via a law proposed by Baron Giacomo Acerbo and Acerbo’s later involvement in managing the economy in various capacities are further indication of the economic elite’s continued involvement with the regime.

It is debatable when, why, and to what extent Italian industrialists lost control of the monster they helped create and what role the Great Depression played in this loss. Yet, the regime consistently took the side of big and increasingly concentrated businesses in labor negotiations, market regulation, provision of financing, etc. Italian fascism was nationalistic and expansionist reflecting Italian industrialists’ envy of other big European countries that had colonies with captive markets. The regime abolished democracy, cracked down on free speech and political rights, and curtailed economic freedoms by forcing small and mid-sized firms to coordinate pricing, distribution, and labor practices. In essence, a defensive move by those with economic power and wealth to empower Mussolini to take care of immediate threats and to steer Italy through turbulent times in ways that would preserve their interests (Figure 2) unleashed the mutually reinforcing processes of power concentration and erosion of rights (Figure 1).

Figure 2: Fascism as a distinct type of totalitarianism driven by economic elites.

Similar but less nationalistic and less expansionist regimes arose in Spain in the years preceding World War II and in several Latin American countries in the 20th century. A major common thread in all these regimes is that they arose in response to threats of communism or socialism felt by domestic economic elites and, in many cases, powerful foreign interests.

What conditions favor the rise of fascism? Commonalities among the countries that have experienced it suggest that cronyism and corruption are the prime suspects, especially when combined with economic shocks. On one hand, cronyism and corruption lead to widespread dissatisfaction and wealth inequalities, and these invite social unrest in times of crisis. On the other hand, they facilitate fascist takeovers of the state via personal contacts, relationships, and trust. Fascism and crony capitalism are adjacent. Crony capitalism seeks economic advantage and rents via corruption of political power while trying to hide it. Fascism normalizes and institutionalizes this corruption while cracking down on individual rights and freedoms, usually in the name of preserving order and property rights. The irony here is that public order and property rights are threatened precisely because of the prior corruption and cronyism.

Cronyism is difficult to control and requires vigilance in any capitalist society. What has made things increasingly difficult in the 21st century is that corporations and economic elites have become global and orders of magnitude more powerful than before. They have vast resources with which to corrupt national governments, and they can hide payments in remote locations if they need to. In addition, we now have the World Trade Organization, the United Nations, the European Union, G20, and many other international organizations and governing bodies that set rules that affect us all. These international bodies are even more hidden from public scrutiny than national governments and, at the same time, are likely to be relatively easy targets for global corporations and well-connected economic elites.

All this suggests the urgency of limiting the power of international bodies, reasserting national sovereignty, and insisting on accountability and democratic oversight of national governments. A major obstacle in this process may be mental and cultural. History of the 20th century, especially that of fascism and some other types of totalitarianism discussed below, has taught us to detest and distrust nationalism. But what if the biggest threat that we face in the 21st century is that of global cronyism or global corporate rather than nationalist fascism? What if the type of democratic nationalism suggested here is our best hope?

Totalitarianism Originating in Political Power: Thugocracy, Theocracy, Communism, and Nazism

Different groups, organizations, and individuals can acquire political power in a variety of ways including elections, other peaceful or semi-peaceful ways, military coups, and revolutions. To the extent that they seek to monetize their power and make it permanent, these groups and individuals may end up establishing totalitarian regimes. Things can look very different from case to case, so we do not have a good common name for these regimes. Discerning differences and commonalities among them helps us understand totalitarianism and its drivers.

A very unfortunate dynamic tends to plague newly liberated or decolonized countries. The departure of the foreign ruler suddenly empowers resistance movements, freedom fighters, and their leaders, and the temptation to monetize political power and make it permanent tends to be irresistible. As seen across Africa, the Middle East, and other parts of the world, the newly powerful almost invariably grab resources and take control of industries, crushing anyone that stands in their way (red arrows in Figure 3). In a sad turn of events, regimes that start with high hopes turn into thugocracies.

Figure 3: Conversion of political power to totalitarian power.

Over time, thugocracies may become crony capitalist regimes if the political elites are able to create competent economic elites and there is sufficient pressure to respect individual rights and freedoms. Otherwise, thugocracies are likely to be more oppressive and less prosperous than Franco’s Spain or fascist regimes of the 20th century South America. An even worse scenario often awaits multi-ethnic countries in which the newly empowered elites are disproportionately drawn from one ethnic or religious group. The disparity among the groups is likely to generate tensions and conflicts, and each clan or ethnicity-based change in political power tends to unleash a new cycle of resource expropriation and political oppression. This process can cause de facto breakup of countries (e.g., Libya, Sudan, Iraq, Syria).

The extent to which the new political elite is guided by ideology or religion can significantly moderate or amplify its totalitarian tendencies. For example, Iran’s theocracy has focused on tightly controlling some individual and political rights, cultural issues, and key economic sectors while leaving property rights, some political rights, and economic freedoms in the remaining sectors of the economy intact. The relative restraint of Iran’s rulers has probably helped the country avoid serious ethnic or social unrest despite being complex, multi-ethnic, having a large middle class, and being exposed to economic and political sanctions. The counterexample of Afghanistan where the Taliban exercised no restraint speaks volumes.

Communist regimes fully centralize the economy and abolish private property, economic freedoms, free speech, and political rights (Figure 4). These regimes have caused much suffering in the 20th century, but their record fortunately indicates that the recipe does not work well in the long run. First, when people cannot accumulate property or change their economic outcomes otherwise, they are not motivated to work hard. Second, even those who are motivated by altruism or other reasons and would like to work hard and/or innovate are not allowed to do so. Third, central planners and those who could pursue innovations and productive initiatives often lack the relevant knowledge and ideas. The lack of incentives and poor use of knowledge and creativity cause communist regimes to fall behind freer ones in the long run. Importantly, the same problems are likely to plague other totalitarian regimes.

Figure 4: Communist takeovers are uncompromisingly totalitarian.

Nazism is a frightening example of the suffering an ideologically blinded group can cause when it obtains absolute political power. Hitler’s Nazi regime ignited World War II which lasted 6 years, killed tens of millions of people, and devastated Europe.

Hitler admired Mussolini and shared his views on nationalism, liberal democracy, violence in politics, etc., but their political starting points and paths to power were different. Whereas the Italian fascists were anti-socialist from the start, Hitler’s party was named the National Socialist German Workers' Party and its orientation, especially early on, was anti-capitalist and anti-big business. Early support and acceptance among economic elites and the establishment allowed Mussolini to use violence for political purposes. When Hitler tried to do the same in the early 1920s, he landed in prison. Whereas it took Mussolini’s party only a couple of years to rise to power, Hitler’s party remained fringe until its message blaming Jewish financiers and Marxists for the economic crisis resonated with disenfranchised voters in 1930. Hitler then deftly navigated Germany’s fragmented political landscape to broaden his support, eventually courting big business and obtaining absolute powers in a referendum in 1934. At that point, he could implement his statist, nationalist, racist, and violently antisemitic project as he saw fit, and all that German economic elites could do was play the role he assigned them.

The Nazi regime murdered Jews, Gypsies, people with disabilities, and political opponents and severely restricted rights and freedoms of all others. In contrast to communist regimes, private property remained, but the regime tightly controlled the economy via a mix of formal and informal mechanisms including financing, large government contracts, privatization to Nazi-affiliated interests, profit-sharing, intimidation, and threats.

All these examples of totalitarianism originating in political power suggest the need to be very sensitive to attempts to curtail free speech and political rights, particularly when those with political power or their family members also get increasingly involved in business and the economy (Figure 3). These are symptoms of the society’s descent to totalitarianism.

The experience of newly liberated countries suggests that vigilance is especially warranted when new actors suddenly acquire a great deal of political power. The examples of communism and Nazism also alert us that the newly powerful can be particularly dangerous when driven by ideology. Hence crackdowns on free speech and individual rights combined with meddling in the economy and business should set off alarm bells especially when justified by some greater goal or good.

The risk of totalitarianism in countries with nationalistic governments such as Turkey or Hungary seems well appreciated today. However, we may also be facing an underappreciated threat of a new woke globalist ideology that seems to have suddenly taken hold among the politically powerful in the West. Pressures on businesses to bow down and adjust their practices to this ideology combined with censorship of nonconforming voices in the media and on social networks should be very worrying considering the analysis presented here.

Totalitarianism as a Joint Project of Political and Economic Elites.

Japan was the only Asian country that resisted colonization and industrialized its economy in the 19th century. The country’s rulers were successful in building infrastructure, modernizing institutions, and cultivating entrepreneurship. At the turn of the 20th century, Japan was an industrial power with a limited two-party parliamentary democracy. Unfortunately, the trend toward broader popular representation which would have reduced concentration of political power and advanced the emerging separation of economic power and political power was reversed in the 1920s due to economic problems, labor strife, the Great Tokyo Earthquake, and political instability. Frightened by the spread of communist and socialist ideas, the elites coalesced to pass a law that banned criticizing the political system and private property in 1925. The law was so vague that it allowed political prosecution of thousands of people.

In contrast to Germany, Japan had benefited from World War I. The elites were in broad agreement that the country needed further territorial expansion to secure access to raw materials and markets for its industries and to remain a great imperial power. There was little that could stop the ensuing militarism, nationalism, and statism with a centralized war economy. The consequences for Asia-Pacific were catastrophic.

Figure 5: Totalitarian merger of political and economic power.

Turnover and public oversight of people in positions of power is a key mechanism to prevent concentration of political power, concentration of economic power, and merger of political and economic power in a democratic society. When this mechanism fails, the society is in trouble. The worrying signs to watch for are (1) the emergence of a permanent political elite that wields a great deal of formal and informal power, (2) weakening of scrutiny and oversight of institutions and especially of the extent to which they allow or even facilitate concentration of economic power, and (3) mingling and turnover between the political and economic elites. When these are accompanied with attacks on free speech and other individual rights, the society is essentially totalitarian even if many do not realize it. When those with political power or their family members also get involved in business and quickly become ultra-rich or when those with economic power take on regulatory or other functions of the state, any doubts about the totalitarian nature of the regime should disappear.

Where do we go from here?

Besides proposing a framework for analyzing different types of totalitarianism and suggesting a clarification of some frequently and often carelessly used terms, the presented analysis has worrying implications for our world today. Fortunately, it also pinpoints specific symptoms and underlying causes, which should be helpful in resisting totalitarian threats moving forward.

It is important to note that while Nazism shares nationalism, violence, expansionism, and militarism with the most prominent historical examples of fascism, its underlying dynamics and path to power have much in common with communism. Anti-nationalism has historically been an important part of the identity of the political left, and the political right has often embraced nationalism. Yet, many left-wing liberation movements in the past have been nationalist, as are Canadian and Scottish nationalisms today. Similarly, today’s global capitalist elites embrace cosmopolitanism much like the communists of the 20th century. The suggestion here is that this tension and the need to reassess the relationships will only increase in the future. The terms nationalism, left, and right may end up being redefined in the process.

In the world of globalized corporations and capital, the more serious threat is globalist rather than nationalist takeover of levers of political power. Even more worrying is the possibility of this happening at the level of international institutions that increasingly shape regulatory environments across the globe. Will the left embrace national sovereignty as a tool to keep political power accountable and close to the peoples of the world so that they can resist this fascist threat? Or will the left cede this battle to the right because any form of nationalism will remain a taboo?

When a nationalist group or party rises to power, the risk of aggressive, militaristic, and expansionist totalitarianism is clear and familiar. The analysis presented here suggests that other changes in political power can bring risks that are easily underestimated, particularly when the change is ideological. It seems that political elites in the West have become “woke” over a relatively short period. This new ideology is increasingly affecting how big and small businesses operate. It is also changing individual behavior, often through intimidation and censorship. These trends are totalitarian and should be taken very seriously as there are no guarantees that today’s wokeism will not morph into some ugly “Wozism” over time.

Another worrying trend is the mingling and turnover between the political and the economic elites. This is particularly troubling considering the increasing attacks on free speech and individual rights. The need to defend free speech and reassert democratic control and oversight of all elected officials and government bureaucrats is urgent. It also seems worth pondering to what extent the two elites may be pursuing a marriage of convenience. So far, the green, globalist, socialist wokeism has not attacked corporations and capital as such directly. Corporate elites have reciprocated by embracing or appearing to embrace woke values. But is there a wedge, is one of the sides being naïve here, and will there eventually be a showdown between the “Wozis“ and the global corporate fascists? What does this latent conflict, if it exists, mean for the rest of us and how can we use it to our advantage?