The difference between fascism and Nazism. What is the difference between fascism and Nazism? The main differences between these political systems

The mistakes of history are the only opportunity to teach humanity to live in peace and harmony. Recently, on different continents one can observe the restoration and revision of fascist and nationalist ideas. Something similar is happening in Greece, Norway, Germany, Russia, and the countries of the Middle East. How do these ideologies differ and are they really dangerous for the state and society?

Fascism is a political ideology based on the total power of the state, the complete subordination of the individual to society. This trend is characterized by the presence of a cult of personality of the ruler, a one-party system of government, and the postulation of the superiority of one nation over other nations. In its pure form, this regime existed in Italy during the time of Mussolini, Romania, Spain, Portugal, Brazil and other countries.

Nazism (National Socialism)- this is a symbiosis of nationalist ideology with a socialist form of government, as a result of which a government that is extremely right-wing in its views is formed, hostile not only to competitors in the struggle for power, but also to other nations. Nazism in its pure form was realized only in Germany during the Third Reich and is currently outlawed as a political ideology.

Fascism appeared somewhat earlier than Nazism and at the beginning of its existence was a theoretical concept. Nazism was rather formed in practice due to the refraction of fascist ideas on German territory. Fascism, like nationalism, placed the state, its needs and interests at the forefront. Against this background, human and individual rights were leveled, losing their urgency.

Despite the fact that both ideologies treat people as consumables, their approaches to assessing the role of peoples differ significantly. Thus, if Nazism places the superiority of one race at the top level and declares the rest to be underdeveloped, then fascism, in principle, is not against the cooperation of any countries. And yet, both ideological movements are known for totalitarianism, in which the harmonious development of society is impossible.

The main implementer of the ideas of fascism is Mussolini. He believed that race was certainly important, but it was determined by feelings, not objective reality. The embodiment of the concept of Nazism is Hitler, who cared about the purity of blood. His racial doctrines actually outlawed not people with certain views, but peoples with certain sets of genetic characteristics.

Conclusions website

Formation of society. If fascism tries to weave the nationality anew through the dominant function of the state, then nationalism only proclaims the superiority of one nationality over others, where the state is a repressive apparatus for the protection of “supermen”.
Origin. National Socialism was formed on the basis of a large number of political movements and ideologies, including fascism.
National question. Nazism is an ideology that postulates misanthropy (anti-Semitism, anti-Chinese) as a policy. Fascist ideology is aimed at strengthening the state and restoring its former power, even at the cost of interaction between different nations and nationalities.

Many people think that "fascism" is the same as "Nazism". And these are often used concepts are wrong. Despite the fact that they are often used synonymously, these systems have significant differences.

In contact with

Main concepts

Fascism is a term that summarizes far-right political movements and their ideologies. They are characterized by the assertion and superiority of one race. It appeared as a political system in the 1920s. in Italy.

This movement is characterized by the elevation of the needs of the state above the needs of the individual. The system is based on a philosophical and political doctrine that was initially opposed to any kind.

Types of fascism:

National Socialism is a narrowly focused economic and political system that was used only in the Third Reich.
Military fascism is a regime of military dictatorship that is established after an armed coup d'etat.

Various types of fascism are found in the history of many countries, sometimes in slightly modified form under the influence of specific factors.

History of origin

Originated long before Mussolini and Hitler, when the movement was formed in 1880 against materialism, positivism and democracy. The general decline of Italy after the economic crisis created an excellent basis for the emergence of this movement, where it began in 1919. Mussolini became the leader. The history of the formation of the system can be divided into important stages:

Creating a program to win over the masses.
Campaigning and strengthening positions.
Formation of armed detachments in 1919.
Aggressive attacks and pogroms after receiving financial support.
Creation of the National Fascist Party in 1921.
Mussolini took over the post of Prime Minister on October 30, 1922 after the Nazis’ armed campaign against Rome.
Creation of a system of totalitarian fascist state.

After seizing power, Mussolini devoted all his efforts to strengthening his ideology and destroying all possible political opponents. A couple of years later, Italy became a totalitarian power with Mussolini as its leader.

Ideology

Mussolini defined ideology as follows: fascism is the doctrine of the absolute of the state, in which a person’s personality and his needs are relative and impossible outside the country.

The main idea was formulated in Mussolini's slogan 1927: “Everything is in the state, nothing outside the state and nothing against the state.”

The hierarchy of democracy and ideas of equality were considered dangerous. Adherents of the system opposed the communists and their ideas about universal equality. It was assumed that all trade unions and parliaments would be destroyed.

Important! According to fascists, society needs authoritarian governance.

Fascism in our time does not exist in its classical form. But varieties of tyrannical regimes that do not accept institutions are widespread. Main features of fascism:

aggressive and armed destruction of opposition, minorities and dissent;
ideological control;
propagation of nationalist ideas;
leader cult;
anti-communism and anti-Semitism;
complete denial of democratic principles;
the dominance of right-wing ideology;
traditionalism;
militarism.

A characteristic feature of the system was also the complete denial of God and “eternal peace,” since the fascists were convinced that man could not live without war.

Advantages and disadvantages

The pros and cons of fascism can be highlighted if we consider it as a political model. Pros:

uniting people through strict order and discipline;
instilling pride in one’s country and nation;
faith and full support government by ordinary people.

corruption;
nepotism in government;
lack of full elections: the one with more military support becomes the ruler;
absence fair trials;
destruction of minorities;
widespread violation of civil liberties;
implantation of ideology against the will of man.

This system leads to complete economic collapse, because the country is constantly working on weapons, and forgets about the needs of industry and people. The pros and cons of fascism, their quantitative relationship, gives an idea of the success of this ideology. Fascism is a relic of the past and should not exist in modern times.

National Socialism: main concepts

What is Nazism? National Socialism - this is the ideology of the Third Reich with pronounced features of racism and anti-Semitism.

This concept is used only in the context of the Third Reich.

The ideology of Nazism became known to the whole world after the Second World War, since the Third Reich is an ideal example of a country with a political course of National Socialism.

The goal of the system is to unite a pure race on one territory, which will lead the country to prosperity.

History of origin

Nazism in Germany formed very quickly, because there were ideal conditions:

An acute political situation has developed against the backdrop of an economic crisis and general decline.
The German working class was divided and the communists were too weak to resist.

The country lay in ruins after the war, the Germans were oppressed, paid constant indemnities to the victorious countries and needed a strong leader and a strong position. Signs of Nazism became clear after Hitler seized power and the establishment of Nazi ideology, which happened in several stages:

In 1919, the National Socialist movement emerged.
Creation of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Hitler is the chairman.
Active campaign program.
Failed coup attempt.
In 1933, Hitler and his party won elections to the Reichstag.

An excellent soil for planting such a policy is a country where there is economic and political crisis.

Attention! Signs of Nazism appear in many countries today, despite their economic conditions.

Ideology

The main idea is is that the state is a means of preserving the nation at first, and then changing it into a society of the future, based on the principles of racial inequality.

This ideal society required purification of the Aryan race from “impurities.”

Signs of Nazism are the distinctive features of a given ideology that define what Nazism is.

The main one is the assertion of the supremacy of the nation in the state and the satisfaction of its interests. The main signs of Nazism are:

racism;
social Darwinism;
racial hygiene;
anti-Semitism and anti-communism;
denial of democracy;
totalitarianism;
leader cult;
military expansion.

Signs of Nazism indicate that it seeks to unite not only a race, but also to do so over one vast territory. The history of Auschwitz, Treblinka and other camps tells what is Nazism.

Advantages and disadvantages

This political system has its advantages:

unification of the nation;
devotion to the general idea;
desire for the prosperity of the people.

But, of course, there are more disadvantages:

destruction of other races and Aryans who are unworthy to live (sick, crippled, etc.);
military expansion and destruction of other nations;
totalitarianism;
lack of free will;
repeated and brutal violation of human civil rights;
lack of a fair trial;
strict control over all areas of human life.

The consequence of Germany's adoption of such a policy was its military expansion, the destruction of a huge number of Jews and other nationalities, and .

The main differences between these political systems

These political directions should not be used synonymously, since they have quite a lot of differences, and this is clearly visible in the table.

Main feature	Fascism	National Socialism
Main Doctrine	The state is an absolute, and the person or race is unimportant. The interests of the country are always higher than the interests of an individual or race.	The state is a means of preserving the race. We should gradually abandon this form and move into the ideal society of the future.
The role of man	To achieve the main goal - an ideal society - it is quite acceptable to cooperate with other races.	There is only one ideal race, and it must rule over the rest, unacceptable and dirty nations.
Race issue	A nation is a society of people who are close in spirit, not blood.	The race is a specific people, the Aryans, and everything must be done to keep it pure.
Antisemitism	Was not present.	Formed the basis of the racial issue.
Totalitarianism	The personality must dissolve and strive to achieve the goals of the state.	A person is not more important than a nation, so he must put all his efforts into achieving its goals.
Question of the Church	The Church was protected and enjoyed patronage.	The Church and its ideals were despised.

"... The word “fascist” today is, of course, abusive, and they scold anyone with it. There is nothing surprising in this: curses like to become universal, these are generally such special words that strive to mean everything in the world, and it doesn’t matter at all , what they defined initially. By spreading this definition over bumps, we slowly begin to forget its meaning, which is not very obvious, strictly speaking. And therefore we become more defenseless, because, having forgotten about the essence of the phenomenon, we may not notice even its most distinct signs walking around under our noses. So sometimes it doesn’t hurt to brush up on the basic tenets of this ideology. Just to remember and understand.

In 1950, scientists T. Adorno, N. Sanford, E. Frenkel-Brunswik and D. Levinson conducted a series of studies designed to establish a portrait of a personality prone to authoritarian syndrome.

We still don’t know why such a large number of people are prone to this syndrome - according to researchers, every third person is openly inclined to it (if people lived and, most importantly, were brought up in an authoritarian environment, then there are 60 “authoritarians” in society -70%). This syndrome is characterized by a careless attitude towards individual rights, low criticality towards generally accepted stereotypes, high loyalty to the existing government, confidence that society has the right to strictly control human life, fear of other peoples and countries, primitive patriotism (“we are the best, and this not discussed”) and the consciousness of one’s own superiority over a considerable part of humanity.

Fear of the freedom of others frightens the authoritarian more than his own lack of freedom. Some researchers believe: this syndrome is important so that people, social creatures, can function coherently. However, even in the most authoritarian society, every third child is born with the attitude “not to be like everyone else,” and this is a guarantee that such a society will still be capable of development. Some scientists dig even deeper and believe that the reason for everything that happens is that people are generally inclined to think in stereotypes.

Our brain can be imagined as a toy railroad, along which long trains with carriages filled with other people's thoughts travel. Only a tiny part of this burden is the fruit of our own mental efforts. And this is wonderful: what would we achieve if everyone was forced to independently, from scratch, learn the laws by which the world around them lives? We willingly entrust others to think for us, and we ourselves receive ready-made periodic tables, Newton’s laws and advice to drink starch and iodine from the stomach. Of course, it is important that this information is provided to us by a person who inspires confidence, but we are equally ready to pull completely random theses from the first trash heaps we come across and believe them unquestioningly under two conditions: a) we have not heard a different opinion on this topic; b) we ourselves never seriously thought about it.

At the University of Cologne about ten years ago, a curious experiment was carried out: a group of students, for several weeks, in conversations with classmates, mentioned the non-existent writer Marbeldin, noting that everything that he writes is pure surreal and generally wild nonsense. After this, a general test of students was conducted, and one of the questions was: “Name modern writers whose works you have read, and briefly indicate your attitude to their work.” Naturally, Marbeldin turned out to be a very readable author. True, the majority of respondents did not rate the quality of his “surprising, weak books” very highly.

If the students, a more or less reflective people, performed so excellently, then it is not difficult to guess what abysses of gullibility are revealed if we are talking about a simple person who is generally not inclined to rack his brains over trifles, since his chickens are not milked, his figs are not trimmed, his child is sick and the mortgage is not paid. That is why religion came into society so easily as a convenient system of ready-made stereotypes for everyone, if there was a suitable prophet who was ready to speak convincingly and simply about complex and ambiguous things. Here it was only necessary to believe that this messenger was invested with the trust of higher powers, after which believing in a dozen impossibilities before breakfast was already a trifle.

But for a very long time, such systems of stereotypes, which extended to almost the entire society, could not reach their full potential. The low speed and questionable purity of the transmitted information interfered. Yes, royal decrees were read aloud in the squares, yes, trained preachers dispersed to parishes to unify the brains of their flock, but any amendments to these stereotypes were introduced into the minds very slowly, and teachers and preachers also distorted them with their own views and reasoning. So create a society that vibrates in unison; a society that instantly responds to signals from the top; a society that would be truly monolithic - no, before 1895 this could not have been thought of. But after 1895 it became possible.

Messrs. Marconi and Popov are never mentioned among those responsible for the emergence of fascism, but in vain. It was the radio that became that terrible Pandora's box from which all the misfortunes laid upon them burst out onto the heads of the unfortunate inhabitants of the 20th century. Newspapers, cinema and, later, television also cannot be discounted, but it was radio stations broadcasting uniform texts from all corners that led to the fact that the world map of the last century turned into a round dance of totalitarian states and we are still disentangling the results of this event. Italy and Germany, Croatia and Portugal, Brazil and Japan, Spain and Hungary, as well as many other countries, became carriers of this ideology, although often the word “fascism” was not heard in their official programs.

A radio that conveys the leader’s orders to any citizen in seconds and that is so easy for the authorities to completely control is not so bad. The worst thing is that through radio the authorities were able to communicate directly with those who had not previously been reached by the printed word, with those who had not picked up books or newspapers, who generally did not have an independent opinion on most issues. For the first time, the authorities spoke to the cattle, to the lower classes of society - its most numerous and most trusting part. She spoke in simple and understandable language.

And yet, why did fascism become such a terrible threat in the 20th century and why did so many countries choose this ideology? Who could expect this from the Italians with their ancient traditions of democracy, from the Germans with their traditional admiration for reason? Why did the Ustaše, the rebel Croats, create a state in which competitions were held “Serboseks” - that’s the name of the knife attached to the glove, with which it was convenient to cut people’s throats (the champion was the master who opened one and a half thousand Serbian throats in eight hours; however, he was helped brigade that dragged the victims and dragged away the corpses). Why did the century of the triumph of science also turn out to be the century of the triumph of concentration camps?

The trouble is that fascism did not “come” from anywhere: it was, alas, a completely natural structure of the consciousness of the average person of that era. Nationalism, let's say, was widespread everywhere. Once upon a time, it was national self-awareness that allowed the states of Europe to develop and emerge, and no one saw any particular danger in this. Segregation was a commonplace even in the most democratic societies: in the 30s, even a rich and educated person with an admixture of “colored” blood did not dare to cross the threshold of a hotel for whites, neither in Malaysia, nor in India, nor in South Africa, nor in many states USA. Patriotism was considered an unconditional valor, as was the willingness to lay down one’s life for the Tsar and the Fatherland. War was not considered such a terrible evil; it was perceived as something natural and often useful.

If we rummage through the classics, we will find among the most enlightened minds of humanity the whole complex of fascist ideas many hundreds of years before Benito Mussolini brought a party with that name to power. Perhaps, only the United States was immune from this misfortune (and even then not the end), in which the founding fathers worked hard enough to ensure that their descendants did not experiment too much with the state structure. But it was in the 20th century that science put into the hands of humanity the tools with the help of which the creation of such regimes and all the bloody consequences ensuing from there became possible. These are primarily fast media, communications and military equipment. Never before has a state become so powerful, and never before has it been so dangerous for its own and foreign citizens.

The ineffectiveness of fascism was proven simply and quickly: it lost the war. Aggressive, but not flexible; able to quickly mobilize, but incapable of full-fledged technical progress; causing hatred among the captured peoples, but not knowing how to live in a state of peace - fascist society showed its inconsistency. The economy does not like such large-scale administration, science is suffocating without the nutritious broth of freedom and unlimited information, and human consciousness begins to stall from the constant lies around.

Nevertheless, humanity would not be humanity if it were not for its habit of making repeated circular runs along the rake. There are still societies that are undoubtedly fascist - for example, North Korea shows the world this purest example of the most tender beauty. The Muslim world, having slept through everything that could be slept through in the 20th century, is beginning to flirt with this ideology, replacing in it, however, national exclusivity with religious exclusivity. And in some places, individual voices are heard slandering that on the territory of modern Russia some of the ten clinical signs of fascism can be observed, which, they say, is not surprising, given how long its citizens lived under an authoritarian regime and glorified the great leaders. But we think it's unlikely. The Internet won't allow it. The times when the authorities could ensure that only correct stereotypes were implanted in the brain are gone; today, any blogger and VKontakte member breeds his own stereotypes in industrial quantities. Crooked, slanted, flea-ridden, frankly stupid - but their own.

But it will be possible to finally breathe freely, of course, only when the number of personal computers in Russia exceeds the number of televisions. Then it will be possible to put a happy, fat cross on the fact that our society will ever have a common opinion on anything.

Today, world science has identified ten features, the totality of which certainly constitutes fascism, although a particular fascist state may not have some of them.

1. Illiberalism, spreading to all spheres of life - from private to intellectual and commercial. Anything that is not permitted is prohibited (or suspicious). Dissent is considered a crime.

2. Traditionalism. At least declared. Innovations in science, in everyday life, in politics, in culture are automatically declared evil, and if the need arises to allow them into use, they look for suitable ancestors in history, which for this reason is cut and altered like a patched coat.

3. Nationalism. The most numerous nation is declared the highest (there may be several such nations), the rest are divided into two categories: “subordinate” and “dangerous”. You can even care about your subordinates like foolish children, you can laugh at them, but in general you should treat them condescendingly. They are assessed by representatives of the “superior” nation as stupid, irresponsible, naive and good-natured creatures in need of control. “Dangerous” nations, on the contrary, are used as a scarecrow, while more hatred and fear are caused not by “enemies on the perimeter”, but by “internal residents”, to whom such qualities as greed, crime, cunning, cruelty and meanness are attributed.

4. Anti-communism. Most historians are inclined to believe, however, that this is a historical, not a cause-and-effect relationship, and if there had been another totalitarian ideology competing with fascism, then it would have taken the place of anti-communism. After all, there were no complaints about socialism - the system closest to communism and adopted by many fascist regimes, and as “communists” the fascists persecuted people of various views - for example, Catholics and nudists.

5. Statism. The term comes from the French “état” - “state” and recognizes the absolute primacy of the interests of the state over any human rights.

6. Corporatism. The division of society into social groups with different rights and responsibilities, which are not always officially prescribed. What is allowed to a party official is not allowed to a worker at a machine, and vice versa. Society is effectively divided into a privileged elite and the rest, with everyone shoved into cells, organizations, communities and unions that control the lives of their members.

7. Populism. Officially, the government, of course, serves in the name of the people, cares day and night for the welfare of the people and is their voice, the people.

8. Militarism. Enemies are needed to consolidate society. To raise national consciousness, wars are needed, or at least preparation for these wars. Mass compulsory conscription for military service, the arms race, military-patriotic education of youth and military operations themselves, albeit non-global ones, are characteristic signs of fascism.

9. Leaderism. The word “fascism” itself comes from the Latin word “fascio” - “bundle”. All people, clenched into a single fist, are governed by a single idea, born in the head of the one and only leader. Everyone else can make mistakes, but the leader never can. Why people with authoritarian syndrome so easily fall into love ecstasy in relation to types who have managed to straddle the vertical of power and show their big teeth to everyone from there is a question for psychoanalysts. We note that only in exceptional cases did fascist ideologies not lead to the creation of such a single earthly incarnation of God the Father.

10. Primitivism. An ideology designed for the most primitive minds. No complex doctrines, ambiguous definitions, no “you see, this problem needs to be looked at from different angles.” Doubt and the desire to figure everything out on your own is the worst feeling you can have when feeding yet another stereotype to the masses..."

Answer

Comment

The majority, even fairly educated people, most often do not know that there is a difference, and quite a big one, between the fascism of Mussolini and the National Socialism of Hitler. National Socialism is often referred to as fascism, or Germanic (German) fascism. Most often, this identification of concepts is observed in an environment brought up on communist ideology, which called the manifestations of totalitarianism in Europe fascism. Often a person simply did not want to separate these ideologies, considering them to be evil of the same root, common, mixing both concepts and not wanting to understand the difference.
Fascism how the totalitarian movement originated in Italy and received its name from the Italian word “fascio”, which means “bundle”, “bundle”, “union”, “union”. Somewhat later, Hitler, taking Mussolini’s idea as a basis, developed it on racist grounds and created National Socialism or Nazism.

A significant difference between these two teachings is the tonal coloring of their nationalistic ideas. Both ideologies are based on chauvinism, but if in fascism this chauvinism is aimed at strengthening the state, the revival of the former Roman Empire and the unity of the representatives of this nation, then National Socialism is the theory of the superiority of one nation over another.

Nazism is dominated by the racial idea, carried to the point of anti-Semitism. The relationship with all other nations also has a connection with the Jews. Everything is connected with the Semites.
According to Mussolini’s definition, “the main position of the fascist doctrine is the doctrine of the state, its essence, tasks and goals. For fascism, the state appears to be an absolute, in comparison with which individuals and groups are only “relative.” Individuals and groups are conceivable only in the state.” This idea is expressed even more specifically in the slogan that Mussolini proclaimed in his speech in the Chamber of Deputies on May 26, 1927: “everything is in the state, nothing is against the state and nothing is outside the state.”

The attitude of the National Socialists to the state was fundamentally different: it is “only a means for preserving the people.” Moreover, National Socialism had the goal and main task not even of maintaining this “means”, but of abandoning it - the restructuring of the state into society. What was this future society supposed to be like? First, it had to be racial, based on principles of racial inequality. And the main initial goal of this society was the purification of the race, in this case the Aryan, and then the maintenance and preservation of its purity. The state was conceived as an intermediate stage, which is necessary at first for the construction of such a society. There is some noticeable similarity here with the ideas of Marx and Lenin, who also considered the state to be a transitional form on the path to building another society (communism).

Fascists are characterized by a corporate approach to solving the national question. The fascists want to achieve their ultimate goal of an absolute state through the cooperation of nations and classes. National Socialism, represented by Hitler and his other leaders, solves the national problem through a racial approach, by subjugating “subhumans” to one superior race and ensuring its dominance over the rest.
The above is confirmed by the statements of the leaders of these movements:
B. Mussolini:“Fascism is a historical concept in which man is considered exclusively as an active participant in the spiritual process in the family and social group, in the nation and in history, where all nations cooperate.”
A. Hitler:“I will never agree that other peoples have equal rights with the German one; our task is to enslave other peoples.”

The main thing in the ideology of National Socialism is race. At the same time, in Hitler’s Germany, race was understood as a very specific type of people, laws were adopted to ensure the purity and preservation of the Aryan race, and specific measures were taken to breed a certain physiological type.

Mussolini argues that “race is a feeling, not a reality; 95% feeling." And these are no longer specifics, these are fundamental ideological differences. Mussolini does not use the concept of “race” at all; he operates only with the concept of “nation”. Hitler argued that the concept of “nation” is an outdated, “empty” concept: “The concept of a nation has become empty. "Nation" is the political instrument of democracy and liberalism."
Hitler fundamentally rejected the concept of “nation”. Moreover, he sets the task of abolishing this concept. Mussolini, on the contrary, identifies the concept of “nation” with the basis of fascist doctrine - the concept of “state”.

The cornerstone of the national policy of National Socialism was anti-Semitism. At the same time, in fascist Italy, there was no persecution of Jews for any ideological reasons. Fascism, as an ideology, is generally free from anti-Semitism.

Moreover, Mussolini sharply condemned the Nazi theory of racism and anti-Semitism.
Fact, but not widely known, that Hitler and Mussolini greatly disliked it when their doctrines and ideologies were confused.
Hitler, in his ideology, took as a basis a way to unite it around pseudo-socialist ideas, transforming Mussolini’s idea of an absolute Italian state into the idea of a society with racial inequality, where the Aryan race would dominate.
Mussolini believed that it was necessary to revive the former power of the Roman Empire; he resolved the national issue corporately. For Mussolini, it was important to organize equal cooperation of nations in order to achieve the common goal of organizing an absolute state, where the individual would be under complete, both spiritual and physical control.

Hitler, so to speak, squeezed the juice out of Mussolini's doctrine, as well as from communist ideas, turning them into a monster not only from the inside (total control over the individual in the state), but also from the outside, turning the German people into a machine of war, destruction and subjugation other nations.
Totalitarianism is an ideology. Both Mussolini and Hitler wrote their works, which became the doctrines of their regimes. In Italy it is “The Doctrine of Fascism”, and for Hitler it is “My Struggle”. These doctrines were the foundations with the help of which the people were convinced, and which should have been the book of “being” of every fascist and Nazi.

Under totalitarianism there is no place for the individual. Everything is absorbed by the state, in the case of fascism or society, in the case of national socialism.
Totalitarianism is terror. In Italy these are the Blackshirts, and in Germany the SA, SS, Gestapo, as well as the People's Tribunal and other fascist justice bodies.

And according to these signs, experts attribute the fascist and Nazi regimes to the totalitarianism of the twentieth century.
After the collapse of the USSR, and Ukraine’s exit from it, pro-fascist in views, the policy of violent total Ukrainization of the Russian nation-forming indigenous population should include the RUKH, Yushchenko’s “NU-NS”, BYuT and, sadly, the current ruling Party of Regions... having come to power by votes Russians, from being democratic in ideas and program, it sharply slid to the right, abandoning regionalism, the Russian language, an alliance with fraternal Belarus and Russia, the Common Economic Space... becoming a clone of its previously mentioned Russophobic parties...

In Ukraine, Tyagnibok’s “Freedom” must be attributed to the Nazis without subterfuge or reservations and, on the basis of the decisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal, it must be declared OUTLAW; say the same thing to an organization that is not registered anywhere, and therefore CRIMINAL - an organization that is ethnic in ideas, membership and actions in favor of only one nationality - the Tatars of Crimea, the so-called “Majlis”. According to all of the above signs, this is an organized crime group based on Nazi ideas of supremacy over other peoples inhabiting Crimea.

#SaveDonbassPeople
#DonbassAgainstNazi

The majority, even fairly educated people, most often do not know that there is a difference, and quite a big one, between the fascism of Mussolini and the National Socialism of Hitler. National Socialism is often referred to as fascism, or Germanic (German) fascism. Most often, this identification of concepts is observed in an environment brought up on communist ideology, which called the manifestations of totalitarianism in Europe fascism. Often a person simply did not want to separate these ideologies, considering them to be evil of the same root, common, mixing both concepts and not wanting to understand the difference.

Fascism as a totalitarian movement originated in Italy and received its name from the Italian word “fascio”, which means “bundle”, “bundle”, “unification”, “union”. Somewhat later, Hitler, taking Mussolini’s idea as a basis, developed it on racist grounds and created National Socialism or Nazism.

A significant difference between these two teachings is the tonal coloring of their nationalistic ideas. Both ideologies are based on chauvinism, but if in fascism this chauvinism is aimed at strengthening the state, reviving the former Roman Empire and the unity of the representatives of this nation, then National Socialism is the theory of the superiority of one nation over another.

Nazism is dominated by the racial idea, carried to the point of anti-Semitism. The relationship with all other nations also has a connection with the Jews. Everything is connected with the Semites.

According to Mussolini’s definition, “the main position of the fascist doctrine is the doctrine of the state, its essence, tasks and goals. For fascism, the state appears to be an absolute, in comparison with which individuals and groups are only “relative.” Individuals and groups are conceivable only in the state.” This idea is expressed even more specifically in the slogan that Mussolini proclaimed in his speech in the Chamber of Deputies on May 26, 1927: “everything is in the state, nothing is against the state and nothing is outside the state.”

Fascists are characterized by a corporate approach to solving the national question. The fascists want to achieve their ultimate goal of an absolute state through the cooperation of nations and classes. National Socialism, represented by Hitler and his other leaders, solves the national problem through a racial approach, by subjugating “subhumans” to one superior race and ensuring its dominance over the rest.

The above is confirmed by the statements of the leaders of these movements:
B. Mussolini: “Fascism is a historical concept in which a person is considered exclusively as an active participant in the spiritual process in a family and social group, in a nation and in history, where all nations cooperate.”
A. Hitler: “I will never agree that other peoples have equal rights with the German one, our task is to enslave other peoples.”

Hitler fundamentally rejected the concept of “nation”. Moreover, he sets the task of abolishing this concept. Mussolini, on the contrary, identifies the concept of “nation” with the basis of fascist doctrine - the concept of “state”.

The cornerstone of the national policy of National Socialism was anti-Semitism. At the same time, in fascist Italy, there was no persecution of Jews for any ideological reasons. Fascism, as an ideology, is generally free from anti-Semitism.

Moreover, Mussolini sharply condemned the Nazi theory of racism and anti-Semitism.

It is a fact, but not widely known, that Hitler and Mussolini greatly disliked it when their doctrines and ideologies were confused.

Hitler, in his ideology, took as a basis a way to unite it around pseudo-socialist ideas, transforming Mussolini’s idea of an absolute Italian state into the idea of a society with racial inequality, where the Aryan race would dominate.

Mussolini believed that it was necessary to revive the former power of the Roman Empire; he resolved the national issue corporately. For Mussolini, it was important to organize equal cooperation of nations in order to achieve the common goal of organizing an absolute state, where the individual would be under complete, both spiritual and physical control.