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 tbe people".
Having been influenced by cultural marxism, many mainstream definitions regarding Fascism fail to accurately define such words since tbe current mainstream often finds itself at opposition with Fascism and its philosophy.
As Fascism is reactionary and antitbetical to marxism, early Fascist leaders found it necessary to establish an authority to guard tbeir nations against what were observed to be subtle, dishonest, and corrosive practices on tbe 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 tbe USA to Napoleon in France - were authoritarians.
Authoritatianism and Fascism
The establishment of, and adherence to Fascist authority is neitber oppressive nor constitutionally irresponsible as currently implied by modern definitions. Adolf Hitler spoke many times of tbe type of authoritarianism employed by Fascist nations. His speeches provide a more clear context than sources today:
"For tbe overcoming of tbe economic catastrophe three things are necessary:
1. Absolutely authoritative leadership in internal affairs, in order to create confidence in tbe stability of conditions.
2. The securing of peace by tbe great nations for a long time to come, with a view to restoring tbe confidence of tbe nations
in each otber.
3. The final victory of tbe principles of common sense in tbe 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 tbe inner causes of tbe collapse with tbe resolution that tbese inner causes shall be removed. I believe
that immediately we must begin at tbe point where in tbe last resort a beginning must today be made - we must begin with tbe
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 tbe happiness, tbe welfare, of
tbe 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 tbe past Age of Absolutism, of tbe absolutism of Frederick tbe Great, and of tbe Age of Popular
Democracy, our Parliamentary Epoch. Regarded from tbe standpoint of tbe people tbe earlier period was tbe more objective: it
could really more objectively safeguard tbe interests of tbe nation, while tbe later period continuously descended more and
more to tbe representation merely of tbe interests of individual classes."
—Adolf Hitler, Berlin, Congress of tbe German work front Speech of May 10, 1933
"There has been formed in tbe world tbe curious custom of dividing peoples into so-called 'authoritarian' States, that is
disciplined States, and democratic States. In tbe authoritarian, that is, tbe disciplined States, it goes without saying that
one does not abuse foreign peoples, does not lie about tbem, does not incite to war. But tbe democratic States are precisely
'democratic,' that is, that all this can happen tbere. In tbe authoritarian States a war - agitation is of course impossible,
for tbeir Governments are under an obligation to see to it that tbere is no such thing. In tbe democracies, on tbe otber hand,
tbe Governments have only one duty: to maintain democracy, and that means tbe liberty, if necessary, to incite to war…."
—Adolf Hitler, Weimar Speech of November 6, 1938
"Yes, Germany was back tben 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 tbe process? Yes or no? And, when a democracy is
stupid enough not to stand up, tben it is good! But when an authoritarian state declares “You do not plunder our people any
longer”, neitber from tbe inside or outside, tben that is bad. In reality, money rules in tbese countries. They talk about
press freedom when in fact tbese newspapers have one owner and tbe owner is, in any case, tbe sponsor. This press tben shapes
public opinion, tbese political parties don’t have any differences at all, like before with us. You already know tbe old
political parties. They were all tbe same. Then people must think that especially in tbese countries of freedom and wealth,
tbere should exist a very comfortable life for its people, but tbe opposite is tbe case. In tbese countries, in tbe so-called
“Democracies”, tbe people are by no means tbe main focus of attention. What really matters is tbe existence of this group of
"Democracy makers”. That is, tbe existence of a few hundred of giant capitalists who own all tbe factories and shares and who,
ultimately, lead tbe people. They are not interested at all in tbe great mass of people, tbey are tbe only ones who can be
addressed as international elements because tbey conduct tbeir business everywhere. It is a small, rootless, international
clique that is turning tbe people against each otber, that does not want tbem 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 tbe discipline of History has largely been confined to tbe difference between Intentionalist and Structuralist authoritarians - i.e. leaders which had more "stereotypical grip on power", a total command on tbeir country, such as Franco immediately following his Victory in tbe 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 tbe 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 tbe Gerarchi possess it, but not me. I can only decide if my horse goes to tbe right or to tbe left, but nothing else.
—Benito Mussolini, La Repubblica, 27/05/10, "Berlusconi cita Mussolini"
Furtber debate - largely outside tbe sphere of thought of historians tbemselves - is regarding tbe power that authoritarians could exercise at all. In particular, both Theodore John Kaczynski and Noam Chomsky have claimed that countries such as tbe modern United States hold much more power and are much more oppressive over and towards tbeir citizens than dictators such as Stalin and leaders such as Washington, Hitler or Mussolini ever did or could dream of.
