THE WESTERN POLITICAL THOUGHT - ilmondonuovo.club

Totalitarianism in Europe

by Riccardo Piroddi

Abstract: Tra le cause che portarono alla nascita dei nazionalismi radicali e dei regimi totalitari tra fine Ottocento e Novecento, la crisi dei parlamenti liberali non fu l’unico fattore: pesarono anche forze extra-istituzionali, il rafforzamento dei nazionalismi e l’indebolimento del legame tra individuo, Stato e società civile. In questo contesto sorsero ideologie che esaltavano la nazione contro l’universalismo illuminista, favorendo imperialismo, protezionismo e razzismo. Spengler interpretò il declino dell’Occidente come esito naturale della civiltà moderna e Barrès fondò un nazionalismo organico e anti-razionalista. È ricostruita poi la logica dei totalitarismi, che cancellarono la distinzione tra pubblico e privato e usarono propaganda e violenza contro i “nemici interni”. Arendt ne studiò struttura e origini, evidenziando il ruolo dell’ideologia e del terrore. Sono analizzati i caratteri del comunismo sovietico, dal totalitarismo staliniano alle riforme di Gorbaciov, e quelli del fascismo italiano, movimento d’azione fondato su nazionalismo, autoritarismo, corporativismo e culto del leader. Si chiude con il nazismo, che portò alle estreme conseguenze il modello totalitario attraverso razzismo biologico, doppio Stato, propaganda capillare e sterminio organizzato. L’insieme mostra come, in diverse forme, le crisi della modernità abbiano favorito sistemi politici fondati su autorità assoluta, mobilitazione di massa e rifiuto dei principi liberali.

Nationalism and the rise of totalitarian regimes

The political crises of late 19^th-century parliamentary systems should not be viewed as the sole factor driving the spread of revolutionary socialist ideals. Extra-parliamentary and irrational forces also played a role, particularly through the intensification of nationalist sentiment. The rise of nationalist and totalitarian ideologies in countries such as Germany, Italy, and Spain can be traced to the erosion of the relationship between the state and the individual, the fragility of parliamentary institutions, the weakening of civil society, and the intensifying social contradictions, as thinkers like Nietzsche had warned.

This dynamic was especially pronounced in Germany and Italy, but it also occurred in France, where nationalist pressures emerged as a reaction against the universalistic ideals of the 1789 Revolution. A crucial element in the rise of nationalism was the separation of the concept of the nation from that of humanity. Politically, this shift had profound consequences, including the expansion of imperialism in foreign policy, the adoption of protectionism in domestic affairs, and the emergence of racism at an anthropological level.

In Germany, the political dominance of the nation became synonymous with racial superiority. This broader process, which culminated in the establishment of various dictatorships during the first half of the 20^th century, was marked by the nationalization of the masses, seen in movements such as Nazism, Fascism, and Francoism. These developments signaled the decline of Enlightenment ideals of equality and rationality, which were supplanted by an ideology emphasizing historical and traditional inequalities. This shift, anchored in an anthropocentric worldview, justified the supremacy of the individual over the community and fuelled a growing demand among citizens for authority and hierarchical structures in politics.

Oswald Spengler

The concept of Volk, or the people, gained significant importance from the Romantic era onwards, particularly within the context of German nationalism. One of the foremost exponents of this ideology was Oswald Spengler (1880–1936), whose seminal work, The Decline of the West (1923), profoundly shaped 20^th-century German culture. Spengler’s sweeping analysis of the historical trajectory of Western civilization, tracing both its rise and eventual decay, would go on to significantly influence the ideology and actions of National Socialism.

Spengler viewed civilizations as living organisms, each undergoing a natural life cycle that begins with birth and inevitably ends in decline. He argued that every civilization exists as a self-contained entity, with its own unique morality, philosophy, and legal system. These features are transient and bound to perish, as each civilization is fated to complete its organic life cycle.

In Spengler’s view, Western civilization had reached its final stage, which he called Zivilisation. This stage represented the triumph of rationalism, but it also, paradoxically, signaled the death of the vital, instinctual forces that had driven the earlier phases of cultural ascendancy. Civilization, by elevating reason over instinct, suffocated the primal energies necessary for political vitality, thus hastening its own decline.

This evolutionary and pessimistic outlook permeated Spengler’s critique of modernity, leading him to advocate for a return to pre-modern political structures. He believed such a restoration could counteract the rampant individualism, bureaucratization, and moral decay that, in his view, were inherent in capitalist economic and social progress. By rejecting the rationalist and individualist impulses of modern civilization, Spengler aimed to revive the vitalist elements that he believed had once sustained the greatness of Western culture.

Maurice Barrès

In France, the nationalistic fervour that emerged from revolutionary ideals gradually evolved into an overt form of anti-Semitic racism. A key figure in this shift was Maurice Barrès (1862–1923), a prominent voice in French nationalism. Barrès championed a philosophy that combined the worship of vital energy and tradition, directly opposing the rationalist and abstract principles of Enlightenment thought.

Barrès’s intellectual framework was unique in that it synthesized seemingly contradictory ideologies—nationalism and socialism—into a theory of national solidarity. His vision sought to protect the homeland and uphold national interests against perceived threats, including the influence of financial capitalism and the increasing power of the centralizing state.

To counter these dangers, Barrès proposed a decentralized federal system modeled on the Swiss example. In this system, governance would be entrusted to the people through a “directorial” government structure. Once the “directorate,” the highest governing body, was chosen by popular vote, no further representative institutions would be necessary, thus eliminating the need for a traditional parliamentary system.

Economically, Barrès advocated for a nationalist, protectionist system grounded in corporatism. This system was rooted in a collectivist view of property, aligning economic organization with the broader goal of defending national unity and sovereignty against both external and internal challenges. His vision thus offered an alternative to the prevailing capitalist model, blending nationalism with socialist principles to preserve national identity and tradition.

Totalitarianism

From a political perspective, totalitarianism emerged as one possible response to the crisis stemming from the conflict between the state, the economy, and the individual. This crisis was exacerbated by the liberal state’s inability to manage the profound social and political changes that arose in the early 20^th century, with the Great Depression of 1929 serving as a pivotal turning point. Totalitarianism sought to dissolve the boundaries between the state, society, and individual, as well as between politics, ethics, and economics, by proposing a radically different order based on ideological and social principles that directly opposed liberal ideals.

In contrast to the institutional structure of the liberal state, the rise of totalitarian regimes fundamentally altered the nature of governance. Totalitarianism obliterated the division between the public and private spheres by absorbing all aspects of life into a singular, indistinct space where political, social, and personal domains were controlled by those in power. This consolidation of authority meant that citizens were stripped of their sovereignty, as governance was no longer subject to public control or legal oversight, but rather dominated by a regime unrestrained by law or democratic accountability.

Another defining feature of totalitarianism was the elimination of the distinction between war and police actions. Rather than focusing on external enemies, totalitarian regimes directed their efforts inward, treating domestic “enemies”—those perceived as threats to the regime—as targets of systematic police operations. Propaganda played a crucial role in identifying and vilifying these internal enemies, institutionalizing their status as adversaries of the state. Consequently, totalitarian regimes normalized the continuous suppression and persecution of any opposition, creating a permanent state of internal conflict where dissent was eradicated at all costs.

Hannah Arendt

Hannah Arendt (1906–1975) sought to understand how anti-Semitism served as both a catalyst for the rise of the Nazi movement and a driving force behind Germany’s aggression during World War II, culminating in the horrors of the Nazi extermination camps. In these camps, the world witnessed some of the most horrific mass atrocities in history. Arendt, a Jewish philosopher, delved into the nature of totalitarianism in her seminal work The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), where she explored the underlying factors that contributed to the emergence of 20th-century totalitarian regimes, including Nazism, by crystallizing the contradictions of modern society.

Arendt identified several core characteristics of totalitarianism, which were common across various forms of 20^th-century authoritarianism, such as Nazism, Fascism, Francoism, and Communism:

A totalizing ideology, which claims that reality can be entirely reshaped according to its principles
The dominance of a single party that replaces the state as the sole center of power
The unregulated and terroristic exercise of power, which finds its most extreme expression in the Nazi death camps
Absolute control over the economy and media, enabling the regime to maintain its grip on society.

Arendt’s analysis raised a series of important questions about the nature of totalitarianism:

How comparable are the different forms of totalitarianism?
What is the relationship between totalitarianism and the bourgeois-liberal state?
How should the conflict between the bourgeois state and the totalitarian state be interpreted?
What philosophical insights can be gained regarding progress, technology, nihilism, and modernity?

For Arendt, politics was not about imposing hierarchical power, but rather the highest form of pluralist, participatory engagement in the life of the polis. She argued that political action should be the driving force of history, grounded in the virtues of the citizen, like the Homeric hero, and guided by the transcendental principles of respect for public space and commitment to democratic, cooperative action. In her view, politics should foster an environment where citizens actively participate in shaping their collective destiny, rather than being controlled by an elite or authoritarian regime.

Communism in Soviet Union

The political theories and regime established by Lenin quickly evolved into a distinct form of totalitarianism with key features that transformed the communist state into an authoritarian system. These characteristics included:

A utopian vision of history, driven by the belief that a new era would dawn after the overthrow of liberal-bourgeois regimes in Europe
The Communist Party, functioning as both a coercive and propagandistic force, played a dual role: it “forced” consensus through repression while simultaneously “creating” consensus through propaganda, positioning itself as the central governing authority
The systematic elimination of entire social classes, such as the kulaks (wealthy peasants who were seen as obstacles to the implementation of real socialism), which were considered “dysfunctions” within the communist system
The creation of a political police force with the primary goal of physically eliminating both actual and potential dissenters, thus consolidating the regime’s control over society.

From a philosophical standpoint, Stalin became the principal advocate of dialectical materialism, though his interpretation amounted to a rigid dogmatization of Marx’s ideas. Stalin extended the dialectical approach from the economy to encompass all aspects of social reality. His vision emphasized “socialism in one country”—the USSR—rejecting any alternative views as “bourgeois.” He also introduced the controversial principle of “socialist legality,” which legitimized all forms of repression in the name of socialism. Additionally, under Stalin, the cult of personality flourished, symbolizing a severe degradation of totalitarian ideology as leadership became centralized around a singular, authoritarian figure.

Leonid Brezhnev, who served as General Secretary of the CPSU from 1964 until his death in 1982, took a different approach. His doctrine emphasized the central role of “the people” in the Soviet Union, which he called “the socialist state of the whole people,” a concept reaffirmed in the 1977 Soviet Constitution. However, this rhetoric largely masked the continued concentration of power within the political elite.

Jurij Andropov, who led the Soviet Union briefly from 1982 to 1984, acknowledged certain shortcomings of socialism, especially its one-sided approach to state problems. He admitted that the Marxist-Leninist ideals had been betrayed and concentrated political decision-making within the Politburo, composed of a select political elite with significant authority.

Mikhail Gorbachev’s leadership marked the beginning of a profound transformation. His revolutionary policies of Perestroika (restructuring) and Glasnost (openness and transparency) broke with the previous rigidly controlled system. These reforms laid the groundwork for the eventual collapse of the Soviet regime, as the Politburo-centric politics could no longer manage the growing pressures for change within the country.

Fascism in Italy

While Communism was born from a clearly defined philosophical foundation, Fascism and Nazism emerged as practical responses to the economic and social crises that followed World War I. As Benito Mussolini himself emphasized, Fascism was primarily a movement of action, with its essence being rooted in pragmatic responses rather than ideological consistency. Unlike liberalism, which looks to Tocqueville, or socialism and communism, which derive from Marx, Fascism lacked a singular intellectual foundation and instead exhibited four key commonalities: nationalism, imperialism, authoritarianism, and corporatism. These traits fuelled theoretical debates surrounding the ideological necessity of war, often presenting war as a passionate endeavour.

The central concepts and characteristics of Fascism include:

Nationalism: Fascism’s ideology was deeply influenced by nationalist thought. However, while traditional Italian nationalism was largely a bourgeois and aristocratic phenomenon, Fascism positioned itself as a mass movement that sought to engage all segments of society
Leadership: The Fascist regime centered around a strong leader, or Duce, legitimized by widespread popular support and sustained by formal rituals that harkened back to the grandeur of ancient Rome. Mussolini’s leadership embodied the figure of the “charismatic leader”—narcissistic yet shrewd in political calculation
Revolution: In response to Italy’s economic challenges, Fascism portrayed itself as the leader of a social-patriotic revolution. Its goal was to reshape Italy’s political and social landscape, maintaining order and well-being for all Italians, while simultaneously advancing the interests of the dominant economic elites
The State as Creator of the Nation: Mussolini’s regime asserted that it was the State, as the expression of a superior ethical will, that would forge the Nation. This philosophy was implemented through political, economic, and propaganda measures, extending the State’s influence into every aspect of Italian life, particularly the youth
Suppression of Dissent: Like all totalitarian regimes, Fascism eliminated dissent through any means necessary, using coercion, propaganda, and violence to maintain control
Ecclesiastical Politics: Mussolini addressed the unresolved Roman Question with the Lateran Pacts of 1929, establishing mutual recognition between the Italian State and the Church. Catholicism was declared the state religion, and the Vatican was acknowledged as a sovereign and independent state
Corporatism: This system was based on the triad of capital, labour, and a strong state, in which economic interests were organized into corporate groups that were tightly controlled by the state
Political Party: The Fascist Party exemplified the Hegelian notion of the “ethical State,” subordinating the individual to the authority of the state. Though nominally subordinate to the Crown, in practice, the party and Mussolini wielded ultimate authority.

In this framework, Fascism sought to integrate the entire society into a unified national identity, with the state acting as the supreme arbiter of all social, political, and economic affairs.

Nazism in Germany

Compared to Fascism, German Nazism accentuated the totalitarian model to an even greater degree, decisively breaking with modernity and intensifying its racist and anti-Semitic foundations. Like Communism and Fascism, Nazism relied on a terrorist use of power and mobilized its ideology through relentless political propaganda that targeted all age groups, notably through organizations like the Hitler Youth. This ideological mobilization was continuous and aimed at global domination, unravelling the social fabric by positioning political power above the law.

Nazism operated as a “double state.” On one hand, there was a normative state designed to ensure the functioning of the economy. On the other hand, an entirely discretionary state existed, surpassing all legal boundaries and devoted to the physical elimination of political enemies. Despite its synthesis of various early 20^th-century racist and nationalist ideologies, Adolf Hitler’s approach was innovative, as outlined in Mein Kampf (1925). In this work, he articulated the authority of the Führer and allowed considerable autonomy to the Gauleiters (territorial leaders), who implemented his directives with significant discretion.

Several distinct aspects of Nazism can be identified:

Economic: although rooted in populist and socialist rhetoric, Hitler forged a strong alliance with industrial elites and the German bureaucracy. His economic strategy, inspired by Roosevelt’s New Deal, emphasized public works and domestic demand to stabilize the economy
Social: social cohesion was achieved through aggressive ideological propaganda. This propaganda, based on anti-Semitism and the cult of the leader, fostered a unified German racial state. The focus on a common internal enemy, the Jews, was central to consolidating popular support and creating a racially “pure” people’s state.
Police and Extermination: Hitler’s racial ideology was systematically applied through the scientific and organized extermination of entire population groups, first within Germany and then in occupied territories, such as the mass murder of Jews in Poland. This was carried out by the highly indoctrinated and hierarchical SS, who served as the regime’s enforcers.

While the Fascist state model in Italy influenced Nazi Germany, particularly in the use of propaganda, Hitler benefited from a more skilled propagandist: Joseph Goebbels. Appointed head of Nazi propaganda in 1929 and later Minister of Propaganda, Goebbels wielded vast control over all forms of media, including film, press, theatre, and radio. His exceptional oratory and organizational talents helped transform Nazism from a fringe movement into an ideology that dominated daily German life. Under his leadership, the Reich’s propaganda machine produced numerous films and documentaries aimed at spreading the ideals of Mein Kampf, indoctrinating the German people in the necessity of racial purity, and cultivating unwavering loyalty to the Führer.

Goebbels’ relentless propaganda campaign played a crucial role in creating a mass hysteria, fuelling the doctrine of “total war” that would later bring Germany to devastation. The role of propaganda in the Third Reich illustrates a transformed conception of mass consensus. It showcased how technological advancements in media could be weaponized to manipulate public opinion and entrench totalitarian control by saturating society with ideology. This marked a pivotal shift in how political power could harness media to dominate both public and private life, laying the groundwork for the catastrophic outcomes that followed.