The F-Word: Fascism and Totalitarianism
Not every form of fascism became totalitarian. What distinguishes these odious ideologies?
In this third and final part of the series on the “F-word,” we will explore a central question of the 20th century, namely, what it means that some variants of fascism became totalitarian whereas others did not. As we have explored fascism through the dual lenses of movement and ideology, a few characteristics of fascist regimes stand out:
Overwhelming sense of an urgent crisis, which can only be solved by a group whose goals are totally fixed on resolving the crisis;
Fear of the group’s decline, especially a decline caused by some kind of out-group who is to bear blame;
The need for a leader whose will is above reason or principle, oriented only at solving the present crisis;
An inalienable right of the in-group to dominate members of the out-group, especially though not exclusively through the use of violence.
These characteristics rightfully feel eerily familiar to us in mid-2025. It is evident that MAGA (as a political movement) exhibits many if not all of these characteristics, and we are seeing an increasingly common use of violence—especially state-sanctioned violence against non-white communities. This violence, most worryingly, appears in many cases to be extra-judicial.
But ought we be concerned about a turn from fascism and toward an even darker movement, one whose logics end in the horrors of mass murder? Before you answer for yourself, let’s explore what totalitarianism is through its historical forbears.
Fascism and the Days of the Second World War
Perhaps the work with the most historical and theoretical breadth on the topic is Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism, on which I rely a great deal.1 We should keep in mind throughout that Arendt wrote Origins against the immediate backdrop of the Second World War, and we should further consider that our understanding of politics remains colored by the atrocities (or “absolute evil” in Arendt’s words) committed by a number of regimes in that conflict—the Holocaust being the most obvious example, but not the only one.
The conclusion of the First World War and the Treaty of Versailles sowed the seeds of fascism insofar as the treaty created conditions of servitude for Germany. The feeble Weimar Republic, whose principles were broadly liberal, could not withstand the toil created by the fallout of the treaty, and these conditions were compounded by global economic disorder in the Great Depression. As a result, “ordinary” Germans were confronted with conditions that were intolerable, and the political situation in Germany, a crossroads of ideology in the 1920s and 1930s, was explosive.
But to draw a straight line from World War I to fascist Germany is to miss the forest for the trees. Indeed, conditions for fascism were germinating well before the 20th century, and in particular resulted from belief in particular forms of conspiracy and the growth of imperialism in European policy.
In important ways, these two pillars (conspiracy and imperialism) of the foundation of the 20th century evolved together. As European states expanded—both domestically and abroad—there was an increasing need to finance large projects, and hence a growing need for credit. This need for credit therefore required experienced lenders, many of whom were Jewish and who had lended to the absolute monarchs of days past. As a result, Jewish lenders and their communities were brought back into the fold of modern society in the 18th century,2 which was a major reversal of a general retreat from contemporary society that occurred in the days of the Roman Empire and imperial persecution of Jews3 alongside other non-Christian communities.
Being brought back into the fold of post-Enlightenment society meant that Jews were afforded rights and privileges, akin to other citizens. Over time, the growth of imperialism outran the pockets of even the most experienced of Jewish lenders, and their onetime near-monopoly of state lending was broken by the increasing reliance of states on the expropriation of wealth from their imperial acquisitions.
However, Jewish bankers as individuals remained a powerful financial force in Europe, though they were fractured from their broader communities.4 Western Jews during this period (that is, the late-19th century and early-20th century) were largely broken up as a monolithic community preceding the outbreak of total war. Once empire was broken after the First World War (except, of course, for the British and to a lesser extent the French), “the non-national, inter-European Jewish element became an object of universal hatred because of its useless wealth, and of contempt because of its lack of power.”5
This inter-European Jewish element, as Arendt put it, not only again was forced to retreat from society, but was not subject to a novel form of existence: statelessness. These stateless people fell outside of any domestic social contract, and were therefore subject to a different kind of logic: those without a state were without rights; those without rights could have their very existence challenged.6 This logic plays an important role in the story of 20th century totalitarianism.
It is not difficult to see how the explosive combination of statelessness, rightlessness, and the emergence of scientific racism created the grounds to challenge the existence of certain groups. To make matters worse, the emergence of rightlessness in general provided the intellectual framework for regimes to challenge the Enlightenment notion that inalienable rights existed at all.7 This anti-liberal move created the political theory that underpins the logic of legal exception and legal emergency, that rights must in all cases give way to exigency.8 Or, put another way, an executive could declare an emergency to give to himself unusual power, liberal rights be damned.
This all leads to a clear image of the development of fascism. After all, Nazis in Germany, for example, had a clear vision set against the liberal order of the Weimar Republic that was attractive to a critical mass of Germans; similarly, fascism grew in Italy, and later in Spain as an alternative to what many saw as failed liberal states.
Yet, not all fascist states moved toward a totalitarian regime. There is certainly debate as to whether Italy was totalitarian, but few consider Francoist Spain in that manner. Nevertheless, there is little (no?) dispute that Nazi Germany moved from fascism to totalitarianism, especially mid-way through the Second World War. But what, exactly, did that mean for Nazi Germany?
Totalitarianism in Motion
At its foundations, totalitarianism requires a similar set of circumstances that may give way to fascism more broadly. There must be a critical mass of people who feel detached from the status quo ante who support a radical change. This is a core reality of totalitarian rule: popularity. Arendt emphasizes this:
It would be a still more serious mistake to forget… that the totalitarian regimes, so long as they are in power, and the totalitarian leaders, so long as they are alive, ‘command and rest upon popular support’ up to the end. Hitler’s rise to power was legal in terms of majority rule and neither he nor Stalin would have maintained the leadership of large populations, survived many interior and exterior crises, and braved the numerous dangers of relentless intra-party struggles if they had not had the confidence of the masses. Neither the Moscow trials nor the liquidation of the Röhm faction would have been possible if these masses had not supported Stalin and Hitler. The widespread belief that Hitler was simply an agent of German industrialists and that Stalin was victorious in the succession struggle after Lenin’s death only through a sinister conspiracy are both legends which can be refuted by many facts but above all by the leaders’ indisputable popularity. Nor can their popularity be attributed by the victory of masterful and lying propaganda over ignorance and stupidity.9
Still, however, this popularity is itself a necessary but insufficient condition for the development of totalitarianism. After all, popular leaders arise in nearly every ideological movement. A key element that is missing, and that moves beyond mere popularity, is the fanaticism of a movement’s adherents. Indeed, this fanaticism is such that adherents, while in a state of fanaticism, cannot be reached by logic or by reason, and they are instead in total conformity with that movement.10 It is here that we can begin to see divergence from fascism as the central exercise of a captured state toward something more sinister, a form of soulcraft that seeks to shape subjects in every facet of their life. Where the fascist utilizes state power to overcome crisis for the advantage of the “right people,” totalitarianism seeks to utilize power to create the right people—totally loyal adherents whose purpose is the reinforcement of the totalitarian movement. Totalitarianism seeks to create for itself the right form of subject to duplicate the logics that help totalitarianism to survive.
These adherents emerge from circumstances in which there is a sufficient number of people appropriately detached from the status quo to be subjected to political organization. Indeed, these mass organizations are comprised “of atomized, isolated individuals… their most conspicuous external characteristic is their demand for total, unrestricted, unconditional, and unalterable loyalty of the individual member.”11 The organization of the movement precedes the organization of the state to resemble the totalitarian movement. Indeed, in this way, the fascist state and the totalitarian state do not necessarily resemble one another; in the former, the state is captured and used for fascist ends, whereas in the latter case, the totalitarian state is deconstructed and recreated in the image of the movement. Where the fascist bureaucracy is comprised of cronies, the totalitarian bureaucracy is purged and reconstituted to resemble the structures of the preceding totalitarian movement.
More to the point, totalitarianism in power must resemble a political force in motion. It moves from a party platform with defined objectives and toward the exercise of power for its own sake. The policies and principles of an organized political party are replaced by the will to power, made obvious in the form of the totalitarian ruler who channels the anger of the masses through the enactment of mass violence. The logic of this form of rule is neither coherent nor logical; rather, it is expressive and symbolic. The totalitarian leader exists only to express the will of the masses through the domination of all individuals in every sphere of life. It is here, through total domination, that totalitarianism is given its most expressive form. As a political form that must always be in motion and express itself through domination, a political goal that would constitute the end of the movement is not conceivable.12 There is not stated end point or clear objective. The “Third Reich” and its rule by an Aryan elite was a project to last forever. Given that totalitarianism must therefore always be in motion, it requires constant attention paid to its adherents to ensure total loyalty, at all times, and often through the use of terror.
This terror is not only used to enforce conformity within the totalitarian movement. Indeed, this terror is also utilized to extinguish other forms of thought—most notably to stamp out dissent through a variety of media, and especially those forms of media that are championed by artists and intellectuals. This is not merely because of any kind of lack of understanding on the part of the totalitarian; rather, totalitarianism cannot permit any kind of intellect other than the logic of domination.13 All forms of thinking and expression must be replaced by loyalty and the replication of the logics of the totalitarian movement.
Of course, loyalty cannot be gained solely through violence. While the totalitarian can (and did) kill many opponents, loyal followers among the masses are won often in the first instance through the use of propaganda. This propaganda creates the space for totalitarian rule through the destabilization of reality. Destabilization is necessary because totalitarian rules exists within the context of an external world that is non-totalitarian. Confronted with contrary evidence, the totalitarian must create a competing narrative to ensure that those who are not yet indoctrinated are unsettled in their view of the world. When facts and reality are unsettled, only then can the work of indoctrination begin in earnest. Propaganda creates an organized movement that is then capable of providing the loyal support necessary to continue the momentum of the totalitarian leader. This momentum is secured by the willingness of the fanatical followers to be willing to sacrifice even their very lives.
Totalitarianism in Power
After the totalitarian movement has gained power and captured state institutions, it faces a paradox of sorts: how can a movement, predicated on taking over and forcing its dominating will on all people, continue to push forward to newer political horizons in perpetuity? Or, phrased in a less subtle way, how can an ideological movement with no defined political endpoint continue to rule without becoming just another absolutist state?
The answer lies in the use of terror as a political objective. To be sure, fear has always been the provenance of state power; we fear the power of the gun that is wielded by agents of the state. Yet, terror and fear are not two sides of the same coin. Fear is rational, a response to the outside world. As such, there is a particular stimulus—I might break a law, for example, and thereby subject to arrest. Terror, however, is more sinister. Terror is internalized, not subject to a particular external stimulus. The novelty of the totalitarian regime is its use of terror as a specific political objective to be pursued. And, the executors of this terror in a totalitarian regime are the secret police.
Indeed, a secret police force is a necessary component of the domestic totalitarian agenda,14 as only a truly secret police can ensure ideological conformity. The threat of the secret police, rather than the secret police themselves, are the key here: one need not be confronted by men with guns to be afraid that any particular person might be either a member of the secret police, or an informant. One’s life in such a regime is always precarious: one need not commit a crime to be the subject of an informant, and without due process, the lack of a crime is meaningless.
The compounded danger of the secret police lies not just in the terror that they create, but the fact that the totalitarian state does not see law as guided by an external ethical code. Instead, law and ethics are one and the same; just as soon as the totalitarian movement determines something must be done, the law is changed to reflect that reality.15 The rule of law becomes the rule of the movement, and the secret police are protected by the fluctuations in the will of the leader who channels that which must be done.
In power, the totalitarian movement (again, with emphasis on its totalizing element) permeates all components of society. The civil societies and secondary associations of functioning liberal democracies collapse into organs of the totalitarian movement. There becomes little or no distance between the totalitarian movement in power and the creation of its totalitarian subjects. These associations are specifically intended to foster the ideological conformity that is required of movement members. The SA and SS in Nazi Germany, for example, though they were paramilitary organizations, were not of military value16—they were for the purpose of fostering loyalty and fanaticism. They start small in the movement stage, and explode in membership later.
The totalitarian subject, in contrast to even an individual who lives in a fascist state, exists in a state of total domination, a state of total unfreedom. Authority contains a power to restrict or limit freedom—we experience trivial examples of this all the time when our actions are bounded by the authority of law. But total domination, in contrast, means that individuals are not simply restricted, but instead utterly incapable of spontaneity.17 The inability to act, that is, to act according to one’s own will, is the final form of totalitarianism: the creation of automatons whose will is that of the movement, and whose will is exemplified in the total authority of the leader. The totalitarian subject exists only to duplicate the will of the totalitarian movement.
Fascism and totalitarianism are related, to be sure, but to confuse the two is to mistake the role of ideology as life. The totalitarian has no regard for themselves; their regard is instead for the will of the movement, and ultimately the will of the leader whose authority is unquestioned. The basis for this movement begins with the unsettling of reality that is forged in times of crisis. Where fascists capture the state and use its power to protect the in-group, the totalitarian sees the state as nothing more than an organ of the party.
The totalitarian, to retain the state as an organ of the party, has no choice but to “liquidate all spontaneity” that “individuality will always engender.”18 As a practical matter, this individuality will always exist in a given society to a greater or lesser extent. Totalitarians target groups who exhibit some level of individuality, whose existence can only be denied through total elimination. This is the logic of camps—the only way to ensure total conformity is to make superfluous those who would challenge that very conformity, even by their mere existence. And it is in these camps that total domination is complete: every moment of existence is in total conformity with the will of the totalitarian movement. There is no possibility of spontaneity.
The tragedy of totalitarianism is not just the enactment of violence, but the vision of a grotesque alteration of human nature into nothing more and nothing less than creatures whose terror forces absolute conformity, total domination, and the damning inability to become anything more. As an ideology, totalitarianism strips away all forms of logic, creating a grand narrative of human history, human nature, and human existence that can neither be challenged nor altered. Such an ideology is the purest distillation of hatred toward humanity.
I should note at the outset that Arendt did not focus solely on Nazism as the sole totalitarian ideology. Rather, Arendt also explored how Bolshevism under Stalin exhibited similar characteristics. However, given that we are more familiar with the crimes of Nazi Germany, I will focus on these examples throughout. Nevertheless, we must not lose sight of the great evils committed by the Soviet Union, particularly under the Bolshevism of Stalin. The literature on totalitarianism is quite wide; however, given my own background in political theory, I tend to take Arendt as an exemplar of the ideological and theoretical approach that rests on history as a guide to understand the manner by which totalitarians think and act.
Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1979, p. 11.
Much of this persecution, especially at the outset, is attributable to Roman propaganda that the Jews “killed” Jesus of Nazareth.
Ibid., 15.
Ibid.
Ibid., 296.
Ibid., 268-269.
See, inter alia, Carl Schmitt’s The Concept of the Political.
Ibid, 306.
Ibid., 308.
Ibid., 323.
Ibid., 326.
Ibid., 339.
Ibid., 392.
It is a curious thing that even totalitarian regimes tend to be concerned with the creation of law; the difference is often in the promulgation of the law, or the lack thereof.
Ibid., 369.
Action and will have a long theoretical basis in Arendt’s work. Action in particular is the human condition par excellence which provides the basis for freedom and makes humans political creatures. Action occurs through politics, which is understood by Arendt to stem from the ability to think and to speak with one another as equals. See, in particular, Arendt’s The Human Condition.
Ibid., 456.