*1
At the last event of the atoprobegevtsi2 I saw posters depicting Azarov and Hitler, unambiguously hinting at the similarity between the two. It occurred to me that a more incorrect comparison would be difficult to find, and I also thought about how much the problem of fascism is underestimated in our country. This prompted me to find the notes I once wrote on this topic and offer you this small compilation.
The pathos of comparing Azarov to Hitler rests on two grounds. The first is that everyone knows Hitler is a fu and Hitler is a kaka3. The second is the belief that Hitler oppressed the workers. On this basis, Comrade Hitler is equated with Comrade Azarov, who also oppresses the workers, and consequently, he too is fu and kaka. However, in reality, Comrade Hitler did not oppress the workers at all. On the contrary, he was their leader — or, in German, the Führer. Hitler led a broad popular workers’ movement directed against oligarchs, plutocrats, Western imperialism, and Jewish bankers. That is, it was a movement against Azarov.
Azarov and Hitler are opposites. Azarov is the product of bureaucracy controlled by no one — uncontrolled out of unwillingness, laziness, cowardice, “do I need this,” incompetence, and ignorance. Hitler is a protest against Azarov, but one directed along the wrong path. That is, Hitler — like Mussolini, like Lenin — waged a furious struggle with the consequences, not the causes. The result of this error is a new flourishing of new bureaucracy (now under the red flag!), a multi-million slaughter, the oppression of the same workers, a lost war (Hitler, Mussolini), rotting and collapse (everyone else).
And now, about the fascists.
First, we must determine what we are dealing with. Fascism, Nazism, and Communism are essentially totalitarian ideologies. The fact that the first two were hostile to the latter changes nothing. It was rather a struggle for a place in the sun. Two totalitarian parties cannot coexist in a single country; the strongest must remain. All these totalitarian movements grow from one root, and it is widely known how similar they are even externally — including red flags, the address “comrade,” and pseudoclassicism in art (though the Italians got stuck at Art Nouveau).
Communism is well known to us, but when speaking about Nazism and fascism, a few words need to be said about their differences. Mussolini espoused the idea of a corporate state — a kind of reincarnation of the medieval idea of the “true place” for everyone, depending on social status. Comrade Schicklgruber was somewhat simpler: for him, the state looked like “Prussian order” taken to its logical conclusion. Additionally, Mussolini was not initially tied to ideas of a superior race; he modestly considered himself merely the heir of the Roman Empire.
The distinctive features of totalitarian movements are:
Totalitarian ideology: Marxism, fascism, Nazism. Such an ideology must be comprehensive and, most importantly, contain a formula of happiness for all — that is, for members of the correct collective. In Marxism, this is the promise of communism; in Nazism, the “thousand-year Reich” based on the rule of a superior race; in fascism, the “spirit of the nation,” which is embodied in the state.
Mandatory unity. Totalitarianism is sometimes called a “state-society,” in which everyone is considered united by a common goal, for the achievement of which no sacrifices are frightening. Propaganda is mass and mandatory, as is “educational work.” Dissent is destroyed.
Populism. Mass support is unthinkable without a simple and conflictual answer to every question, indicating who is to blame. The world is presented as a system in which “if somewhere has gained, then somewhere has lost,” and accordingly, one simply needs to divide justly. The small joys of confiscating the property of “enemies of the people” bring additional pleasant moments to the work of serving this people.
Sincere and mass support. This is a mandatory condition; without numerous people believing selflessly and fervently, totalitarianism is unthinkable.
A totalitarian party. After victory, the party becomes the “guiding and directing force” of society. It controls the state. Of course, there must be one such “party.”
Socialism. All totalitarian regimes attempted to implement economic socialist doctrines — nationalization, price regulation, management of production by workers’ and managers’ councils (Mussolini), “five-year plans” in the USSR, the “four-year development plan” in Germany, and so on.
All totalitarian movements had a mass, popular character and arose as protest movements. The victory of a totalitarian movement is impossible under conditions of well-being and prosperity. Totalitarian parties were revolutionary parties; after their victory, the state and social structure changed radically. These were revolutions — the socialist revolution in Russia, the fascist revolution in Italy, the National Socialist revolution in Germany.
Such parties, again, were unthinkable without leaderism. The protest leaders were colorful figures. Hitler seems funny to us, but for his time he was a “fashionable dude.” Now he would wear a goatee, an exotic hairstyle, piercings, and tattoos.
I emphasize that the basis of totalitarianism’s success is belief in its goals. The so-called “masses” believed not so much in Hitler, Mussolini, or Stalin as in the ideas of a bright future — and that these leaders intended and were able to lead “all of us” there. At the same time, these ideas always had a “scientifically substantiated” character. For Germany, this was “living space,” “food security,” and similar mercantilist tricks from the seventeenth century. Germans were appointed the superior race because they considered themselves capable of handling these problems better than others. “Scientists have proven” that this is so, and there’s nothing to be done about it. Other peoples had to submit or perish, but, as they say, nothing personal was involved. The same can be said about Marxism. Representatives of the “exploiting classes” were not considered bad people — or even criminals in the classical sense. Simply, by their very existence they threatened the restoration of the “old world” and therefore had to be destroyed. Nothing personal.
It was precisely the selflessness in pursuing the goal set before the “nation” or “proletariat” that led totalitarian parties to victory. Corruption was unthinkable. It inevitably arose later — in the post-war surviving USSR, then in China, and now in North Korea — but initially totalitarian parties were anti-corruption, since, I repeat, these were protest parties.
In general, anyone who wishes can compare this description with the currently ruling regime. Admittedly, terror and repression are logical consequences of the rule of totalitarian parties, but not every terror is necessarily caused by totalitarianism alone. The same “militarist Japan,” which committed no fewer mass killings and repressions during the years of World War II, was nevertheless not a totalitarian state in the classical sense.
After the war, “fascism” became a term of abuse, but worst of all, in many countries both fascist parties and “fascist propaganda” are persecuted. As is usually the case with state intervention, this leads to directly opposite consequences — I will not even mention that if fascism and Nazism are banned, then communism must also be banned, which is no different and which killed far more people.
Ukrainian legislation believes it should punish “fascist propaganda.” But in reality, fascist ideology flourishes in Ukraine; fascist propaganda pours forth from the mouths of the most diverse politicians; there are fascist parties; books, newspapers, and magazines are published, and so on. The reason is simple — no one and never will be able to prove in court that someone is a fascist. This is impossible for understandable reasons: a) a complete and final list of characteristics of fascism is impossible, as is the case with any other ideology; b) a mismatch with such a hypothetical list in even one point means that the accused is not a fascist.
Our society is sufficiently fascisoid. I think about ninety percent of Ukrainians support totalitarian ideas in “soft form” — to be fair, it must be said that they support any ideas except those that call for personal responsibility for their own lives. However, no one will even be able to pose the question of fascism to society, no one will be able to begin a serious discussion as long as the state persecutes “for fascism.” As a result, the obscurantism that Ukrainians suffer from is not considered fascism. “Fascism is bad. We don’t have fascists here, but something else — not so bad, since fascists are banned.” If no one is imprisoned or persecuted “for fascism,” then there is none, thinks our ordinary person.
In general, the main danger is ourselves and our desire to shed responsibility and dissolve into the crowd. In the case of Azarov — a cowardly and inert crowd hiding from the all-powerful racketeer state and complaining “what can I do”; in the case of Hitler — an aggressive crowd “maintaining order.”
Fascism is beautiful. The left greatly bustled about trying to somehow explain this phenomenon. Even psychoanalysis was brought into play; Fromm generally came up with necrophilia. In reality, this is all nonsense. At the very core of fascism and any other totalitarianism are the best human feelings and aspirations. A wonderful feeling of unity in the name of a common righteous cause, a feeling of belonging to a large and bright “we,” from which goosebumps run… pure beauty, unburdened by reason.