Totalitarianism

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Totalitarianism is a word that began as an insult, became a battle cry, and ended up contested by the very scholars who once wielded it most confidently. When Benito Mussolini declared "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state," he was not being condemned as a totalitarian. He was using the word to celebrate himself. That reversal sets up a puzzle: who actually invented totalitarianism as a concept, who applied it to whom, and does the category describe a real political phenomenon or a useful fiction invented for Cold War purposes? The story stretches from an Italian anti-fascist coining the term in 1923, through Hannah Arendt's landmark 1951 treatise, to Slavoj Zizek's sardonic comparison of the concept to a green tea advertisement. Along the way it touches the Armenian genocide, the Gulag, the Holocaust, the CIA's funding of academic conferences, and the question of whether Adolf Hitler was, paradoxically, a "weak dictator."

• 2. A Word Born in Opposition

  ›

  In 1923, the anti-fascist academic Giovanni Amendola coined the term "totalitarianism" to describe the government that Mussolini had established in Italy the previous year. Amendola meant it as an attack. He wanted to capture the way Mussolini personally exercised total power across politics, the military, the economy, and society. The irony is that Italian fascists soon adopted the term themselves and wore it as a badge of pride. Giovanni Gentile, the intellectual theoretician of Italian fascism, gave the word a positive philosophical meaning and defended it as expressing the "total representation of the nation and total guidance of national goals." Gentile co-authored with Mussolini the 1932 essay "The Doctrine of Fascism," which embedded this positive self-description in official ideology. By the early 1920s the word had already begun its strange life as both accusation and self-promotion. What Amendola launched as a critique, the fascists reclaimed as an aspiration, and that slippage between the critic's meaning and the subject's meaning would dog the concept for the rest of the century.

• 3. Comparing the Incomparable

  ›

  The concept gained its sharpest edges not in Italy but in the comparison of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Leon Trotsky was among the first left-wing voices to apply the term to Stalin's state, and writer and activist Victor Serge was the first to direct it explicitly at the USSR, doing so in a letter published in France shortly before his arrest. In The Revolution Betrayed (1936), Trotsky used "totalitarian" to describe the concentration of power in a single individual, the abolition of popular control, extreme repression, and the elimination of competing centers of power. Yet Trotsky would have rejected the Cold War theorists' core move: he did not think "central control and direction of the entire economy" applied to fascism, and he opposed the tendency to paint totalitarian societies as monolithic and static. The concept gained new legitimacy in 1939 with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, after which Nazism was called "brown Bolshevism" and Stalinism "red fascism." That same year, scholars held the first international symposium on totalitarianism in Philadelphia. The concept was then abandoned in 1941 when the Third Reich invaded the USSR and the Allies needed the Soviet Union as a partner, only to be resurrected as the Cold War began.

• 4. Arendt and the Mass Appeal of Certainty

  ›

  Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism, published in 1951, reframed the question by asking not just what totalitarianism did but why it attracted followers. Arendt argued that both corporatist Nazism and Soviet communism were genuinely novel forms of government in the early 20th century, not merely updated versions of older tyrannies. Her answer to the question of mass appeal was psychological: the totalitarian worldview offered comforting, definitive answers to complex social and historical mysteries. Nazism proposed that all history is the history of ethnic conflict, of the survival of the fittest race. Marxism-Leninism proposed that all history is the history of class conflict, of the survival of the fittest social class. Accepting either framework gave the believer a simple moral certainty with which to justify every action. Arendt was also precise about Mussolini: she contended that his dictatorship was not a truly totalitarian regime until 1938, pointing out that Victor Emmanuel III still reigned as a figurehead and helped engineer Mussolini's dismissal in 1943, and that the 1929 Lateran Treaty left the Catholic Church free to exercise religious authority independently under its own leadership. The threshold Arendt set was the ability to mobilize the masses at scale, and she wrote that totalitarian regimes appeared "impossible, even under otherwise favorable circumstances, in countries with relatively small populations."

• 5. The Weak Dictator Problem

  ›

  Carl Joachim Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski produced the most influential structural model in Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (1956), listing six interlocking features: an elaborate guiding ideology; a one-party state; use of state terrorism; a monopoly on weapons; a monopoly on mass media; and a centrally directed planned economy. This model became the bedrock of Kremlinology during the Cold War. The trouble was that empirical historians of Nazi Germany found the model fit poorly. Historians Hans Mommsen and Ian Kershaw described Hitler as a "weak dictator" and a "laissez-faire leader." Franz Leopold Neumann had made the same argument as early as 1942 in his work Behemoth, presenting Hitlerism as "a Behemoth, a non-state, a chaos, a rule of lawlessness, disorder, and anarchy." In the 1970s, the German functionalist school of historians portrayed Nazism as a "polycratic" system built on competing power centers: the Nazi party, the army, economic elites, and the state bureaucracy. Michael Mann concluded that while Stalinism and Nazism "belong together," the rigid top-down bureaucracy of totalitarian theory was simply unreal as a description of modern states, which normally operate through factionalism and improvisation. Historian Karl Dietrich Bracher argued the Friedrich-Brzezinski typology was too inflexible because it omitted the revolutionary dynamics of movements committed to violent transformation, and Walter Laqueur agreed that Bracher's alternative description was more accurate.

• 6. Revisionists and the Stalinist Debate

  ›

  Starting in the 1970s, a revisionist school of historians challenged the totalitarian model as applied to the Soviet Union. Sheila Fitzpatrick and others argued that the Stalinist system could not and did not rule solely through coercion and terror, and that the party and state were often responsive to people's desires and values. Fitzpatrick later wrote that "totalitarian-model scholarship" had produced a portrait of the USSR as "a top-down entity, a monolithic party grounded on ideology and ruling by terror over a passive society," which was essentially a mirror image of Soviet self-representation with the moral signs reversed. Historian J. Arch Getty, examining the Smolensk Archive, described "a technically weak and politically divided party whose organizational relationships seem more primitive than totalitarian," and noted that many purges and forced collectivizations were local or "popular initiatives" that Stalin could not fully control. Robert Service wrote in his biography of Stalin that "this was not a totalitarian dictatorship as conventionally defined because Stalin lacked the capacity, even at the height of his power, to secure automatic universal compliance with his wishes." Eric Hobsbawm judged that Stalin's desire for total control was real but that he never established an actual totalitarian system, which he said "throws considerable doubt on the usefulness of the term." In 1999, sociologists Randall Collins and David Waller grouped totalitarianism among "theories that were completely wrong," and in 2008, Fitzpatrick and Michael Geyer's Beyond Totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism Compared reached similar conclusions.

• 7. Cold War Politics and Academic Battles

  ›

  The concept of totalitarianism was never only an academic question. In post-war American political culture, McCarthyite politicians used it to discredit anti-fascism as misguided foreign policy and redirect hostility toward communism, helping create what became the American national security state. The political theory of totalitarianism in France and Italy was promoted by the Congress for Cultural Freedom, which James Petras has argued was funded by the CIA to attack what he called "Stalinist anti-totalitarianism." In continental Europe, particularly in countries where Communist parties had played a dominant role in the anti-fascist resistance, the major theoretical works of Friedrich, Brzezinski, and Arendt were often ignored or never translated. After 1991, with the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, the concept surged again. In 1995, François Furet coined the phrase "totalitarian twins" to link Nazism and Stalinism, and The Black Book of Communism (1997) argued structural homology between what its editor Stephane Courtois called "class genocide" and "race genocide," triggering an intense debate in France. Ernst Nolte went further, presenting the entire conflict as a European Civil War begun by Bolshevism that produced Nazism as "an inverted Bolshevism," describing the Holocaust and Operation Barbarossa as "both a retaliation and a preventive measure." Historians Enzo Traverso and Arno J. Mayer accepted Nolte's framing of a European Civil War but placed its start in 1914 and disputed his interpretation entirely.

• 8. What the Word Still Does

  ›

  Enzo Traverso, in his 2017 essay "Totalitarianism Between History and Theory," called the term "both useless and irreplaceable," citing Franz Leopold Neumann's description of it as a Weberian ideal type, an abstraction that does not exist in concrete historical reality. Hans Mommsen dismissed it as "a descriptive concept, not a theory" with "little or no explanatory power," while conceding it permits legitimate comparative analysis of techniques of domination. John Connelly, in his 2010 essay "Totalitarianism: Defunct Theory, Useful Word," drew the sharpest distinction: the old 1950s theory is defunct among scholars, but the word remains serviceable. Connelly asked who could tell Vaclav Havel or Adam Michnik that they were deceiving themselves when they perceived their rulers as totalitarian, or deny the validity of the Czech word totalita as used by millions who lived under Soviet-type rule before 1989. Saladdin Ahmed's Totalitarian Space and the Destruction of Aura (2019) pushed in a different direction, arguing that the standard criteria actually privilege the least developed forms of domination. Ahmed used General Pinochet's Chile as a case where no official ideology was imposed, yet the influence of economist Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys produced what Ahmed called a more effective "ideological hegemony" than any openly stated doctrine. Ahmed contrasted this with Nicolae Ceausescu's Romania, which met Friedrich and Brzezinski's criteria exactly but collapsed immediately when the population offered no defense. Traverso himself wrote that whatever its analytical weaknesses, the concept stores the memory of Auschwitz and Kolyma, the death camps of Nazism, the Stalinist Gulags, and Pol Pot's killing fields, and that "its legitimacy does not need any academic recognition."