Authoritarianism is currently defined by Merriam Webster as (1) "of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority" and (2) "of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or elite not constitutionally responsible to the people".
Having been influenced by cultural marxism, many mainstream definitions regarding Fascism fail to accurately define such words since the current mainstream often finds itself at opposition with Fascism and its philosophy.
As Fascism is reactionary and antithetical to marxism, early Fascist leaders found it necessary to establish an authority to guard their nations against what were observed to be subtle, dishonest, and corrosive practices on the part of left wing radicals. Early Fascists observed that Liberal activity served to weaken and corrupt societal institutions such as education, media, medicine, and popular culture.
Most leaders regarded as "central figures" within Liberal countries - from George Washington in the USA to Napoleon in France - were authoritarians.
Authoritatianism and Fascism
The establishment of, and adherence to Fascist authority is neither oppressive nor constitutionally irresponsible as currently implied by modern definitions. Adolf Hitler spoke many times of the type of authoritarianism employed by Fascist nations. His speeches provide a more clear context than sources today:
"For the overcoming of the economic catastrophe three things are necessary:
1. Absolutely authoritative leadership in internal affairs, in order to create confidence in the stability of conditions.
2. The securing of peace by the great nations for a long time to come, with a view to restoring the confidence of the nations
in each other.
3. The final victory of the principles of common sense in the organization and conduct of business, and also a general release
from reparations and impossible liabilities for debts and interest."
—Adolf Hitler, Berlin, Reichstag Speech of March 23, 1933
"We must penetrate to the inner causes of the collapse with the resolution that these inner causes shall be removed. I believe
that immediately we must begin at the point where in the last resort a beginning must today be made - we must begin with the
State itself. A NEW AUTHORITY MUST BE SET UP, AND THIS AUTHORITY MUST BE INDEPENDENT OF MOMENTARY CURRENTS OF CONTEMPORARY
OPINION, ESPECIALLY OF THOSE CURRENTS WHICH FLOW FROM A NARROW AND LIMITED ECONOMIC EGOISM. THERE MUST BE CONSTITUTED A
LEADERSHIP OF THE STATE WHICH REPRESENTS A REAL AUTHORITY, an authority independent of any one stratum of society. A
leadership must arise in which every citizen can have confidence, assured that its sole aim is the happiness, the welfare, of
the German people, a leadership which can with justice say of itself that it is on every side completely independent. People
have talked so much of the past Age of Absolutism, of the absolutism of Frederick the Great, and of the Age of Popular
Democracy, our Parliamentary Epoch. Regarded from the standpoint of the people the earlier period was the more objective: it
could really more objectively safeguard the interests of the nation, while the later period continuously descended more and
more to the representation merely of the interests of individual classes."
—Adolf Hitler, Berlin, Congress of the German work front Speech of May 10, 1933
"There has been formed in the world the curious custom of dividing peoples into so-called 'authoritarian' States, that is
disciplined States, and democratic States. In the authoritarian, that is, the disciplined States, it goes without saying that
one does not abuse foreign peoples, does not lie about them, does not incite to war. But the democratic States are precisely
'democratic,' that is, that all this can happen there. In the authoritarian States a war - agitation is of course impossible,
for their Governments are under an obligation to see to it that there is no such thing. In the democracies, on the other hand,
the Governments have only one duty: to maintain democracy, and that means the liberty, if necessary, to incite to war…."
—Adolf Hitler, Weimar Speech of November 6, 1938
"Yes, Germany was back then a democracy, before us and we’ve been plundered and squeezed dry. No more. What does democracy or
authoritarian state mean for those international hyenas? They don’t care at all! They are only interested in one thing. Are you
willing to be plundered? Yes or no? Are you stupid enough to keep quiet in the process? Yes or no? And, when a democracy is
stupid enough not to stand up, then it is good! But when an authoritarian state declares “You do not plunder our people any
longer”, neither from the inside or outside, then that is bad. In reality, money rules in these countries. They talk about
press freedom when in fact these newspapers have one owner and the owner is, in any case, the sponsor. This press then shapes
public opinion, these political parties don’t have any differences at all, like before with us. You already know the old
political parties. They were all the same. Then people must think that especially in these countries of freedom and wealth,
there should exist a very comfortable life for its people, but the opposite is the case. In these countries, in the so-called
“Democracies”, the people are by no means the main focus of attention. What really matters is the existence of this group of
"Democracy makers”. That is, the existence of a few hundred of giant capitalists who own all the factories and shares and who,
ultimately, lead the people. They are not interested at all in the great mass of people, they are the only ones who can be
addressed as international elements because they conduct their business everywhere. It is a small, rootless, international
clique that is turning the people against each other, that does not want them to have peace. They can suppress us! They can
kill us, if you like! But we will not capitulate!"
—Adolf Hitler
Debate regarding Authoritarianism
The power of authoritarian figures throughout history has been criticized as being misrepresented and inaccurate.
The debate within the discipline of History has largely been confined to the difference between Intentionalist and Structuralist authoritarians - i.e. leaders which had more "stereotypical grip on power", a total command on their country, such as Franco immediately following his Victory in the Spanish Civil War; and leaders such as Mussolini, which had to compromise with many forces and people within his own nation, resulting in a very limited control over the country. This is exemplified by a quote regarding this topic by Mussolini himself:
They say that I have power, but I have no power, maybe the Gerarchi possess it, but not me. I can only decide if my horse goes to the right or to the left, but nothing else.
—Benito Mussolini, La Repubblica, 27/05/10, "Berlusconi cita Mussolini"
Further debate - largely outside the sphere of thought of historians themselves - is regarding the power that authoritarians could exercise at all. In particular, both Theodore John Kaczynski and Noam Chomsky have claimed that countries such as the modern United States hold much more power and are much more oppressive over and towards their citizens than dictators such as Stalin and leaders such as Washington, Hitler or Mussolini ever did or could dream of.
|
