Later, fascism became a more generic term that was meant to cover an entire class of authoritarian political ideologies, parties, and political systems, though no consensus was ever achieved on a precise definition of what it means to be "fascist". Various scholars have sought to define fascism, and a list of such definitions can be found in the article definitions of fascism. Part of the difficulty arises from the fact that today there exist very few self-identified fascists. The word has become a slur throughout the political spectrum since the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II, and it has been extremely uncommon for any political groups to call themselves fascist since
Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism Save Hitler in Stalin in A number of authors have carried out comparisons of Nazism and Stalinismin which they have considered the similarities and differences of the two ideologies and political systemswhat relationship existed between the two regimes, and why both of them came to prominence at the same time.
During the 20th century, the comparison of Stalinism and Nazism was made on the topics of totalitarianismideology, and personality cult. Both regimes were seen in contrast to the liberal West, with an emphasis on the similarities between the two.
Not all totalitarian movements succeed in creating totalitarian governments once they gain power. European imperialism of the nineteenth century also paved the way for totalitarianism, by legitimizing the concept of endless expansion. Their target audience did not have to be persuaded to despise the other parties or the democratic system, because it consisted of people who already despised mainstream politics.
As a result, totalitarian movements were free to use violence and terror against their opponents without fear that this might alienate their own supporters. Indoctrination consists of the message that a totalitarian government promotes internally, to the members of the ruling party and that segment of the population which supports the government.
Propaganda consists of the message that a totalitarian government seeks to promote in the outside world, and also among those parts of its own society which may not support the government.
According to Arendt, totalitarian governments did not merely use these appeals to supposed scientific laws as propaganda to manipulate others. Rather, totalitarian leaders like Hitler and Stalin genuinely believed that they were acting in accordance with immutable natural laws, to such an extent that they were willing to sacrifice the self-interest of their regimes for the sake of enacting those supposed laws.
The totalitarian leader does not rise to power by personally using violence or through any special organizational skills, but rather by controlling appointments of personnel within the party, so that all other prominent party members owe their positions to him.
Even when the leader is not particularly competent and the members of his inner circle are aware of his deficiencies, they remain committed to him out of fear that without him the entire power structure would collapse. According to Arendt, totalitarian governments must be constantly fighting enemies in order to survive.
This explains their apparently irrational behavior, for example when Hitler continued to make territorial demands even after he was offered everything he asked for in the Munich Agreementor when Stalin unleashed the Great Terror despite the fact that he faced no significant internal opposition.
Slaves were abused and killed for the sake of profit; concentration camp inmates were abused and killed because a totalitarian government needed to justify its existence.
That is to say, most of the inmates had not actually committed any action against the regime. Totalitarian systems and autocracies The totalitarian paradigm in the comparative study of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union was further developed by Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinskiwho wrote extensively on this topic both individually and in collaboration.
In particular, it is distinguished by a reliance on modern technology and mass legitimation. Friedrich and Brzezinski argue that Nazism and Stalinism are not only similar to each other, but also represent a continuation or a return to the tradition of European absolute monarchy on certain levels.
This depends in part on the personal character of different leaders, but Friedrich and Brzezinski believe that there is also an underlying political cycle, in which rising discontent leads to increased repression up to the point at which the opposition is eliminated, then controls are relaxed until the next time that popular dissatisfaction begins to grow.
Totalitarianism can only exist after the creation of modern technology, because such technology is essential for propagandafor surveillance of the population, and for the operation of a secret police.
First, an official ideology that is supposed to be followed by all members of society, at least passively, and which promises to serve as a perfect guide towards some ultimate goal. Second, a single political partycomposed of the most enthusiastic supporters of the official ideology, representing an elite group within society no more than 10 percent of the populationand organized along strictly regimented lines.
Fourth, a similar monopoly held by the party over the mass media and all technological forms of communication. The dictator, whether Stalin, Hitler or Mussolini, holds supreme power.
Friedrich and Brzezinski explicitly reject the claim that the Party, or any other institution, could provide a significant counterweight to the power of the dictator in Nazism or Stalinism.
This is partly due to the way that totalitarian governments arise. They come about when a militant ideological movement seizes power, so the first leader of a totalitarian government is usually the ideologue who built the movement that seized power, and subsequent leaders try to emulate him.
Friedrich points out that neither the Nazi nor the Stalinist government ever established any official line of succession or any mechanism to decide who would replace the dictator after his death.Michael Kellogg 3 maintain distinct boundaries.8 Though Nazism developed in a primarily “German” context, one must accord White émigrés, the flotsam and jetsam of world war and revolution from the East, a crucial role in the genesis of the ideology that played such a.
Like Kershaw and Lewin, Burrin says that the relationship between the leader and his party’s ideology was different in Nazism compared to Stalinism: “One can rightly state that Nazism cannot be dissociated from Hitlerism, something that is difficult to affirm for Bolshevism and Stalinism.”.
Extremist Ideologies like Bolshevism/Nazism had many similarities, historically Nazism was the reaction to western hegemonial Imperialism and eastern hegemonial Bolshevism!
Don’t forget that Hitler earlier was a communist-sympathizer himself. Jul 17, · Hitler in Stalin in A number of authors have carried out comparisons of Nazism and Stalinism, in which they have considered the issues of whether the two ideologies were similar or different, how these conclusions affect understanding of 20th century history, what relationship existed between the two regimes, and why both of them came to prominence at the same time.
Adolf Hitler Caused World War II May 1, In conjunction with ‘Lebensraum’ it was Hitler’s ambition to destroy bolshevism. Friedman identifies the similarities between Communism and Nazism.
German Communists were only interested in power and following a tyrannical leader;. Essay about Nazism, Communism and Fascism When World War I was over, it left behind a significantly large amount of chaos and brought about the interwar years.
The chaos caused by the war shattered the traditional philosophies and belief systems of many Europeans and this caused them to seek new economic and political systems that ensured.