Opposing the proletariat to the capitalist, communism envisioned itself as a struggle. This fight extended to everything outside of it, and it eventually retreated to the nation. Did it eventually converge with National Socialism ?
Hitler and Nazism represent practically the ultimate evil. It must be acknowledged that they serve a purpose. There is the desire, described in "Mein Kampf," to establish the Germanic essence (1) as a principle. Then, in the construction of the National Socialist state, there is the instrumentalization of man.
There was a skillful construction of evil, orderly and conscientious, which in fact illustrates malice.
It's the famous 'Godwin's Law' that ends all discussions.
Indeed, there have been other curses. It was appropriate to compare Nazism and communism, which have many similarities (2). Communism has currently caused three times more victims from a generous ideology, which raises the question of hypocrisy and, more broadly, the place of morality in history.
Human history is rich in abominations, and these regimes have modernized them. However, these two systems operate on different levels. If they are parasites of human history, one is a predator while the other is a scavenger.
Chronologically, the roots of 20th-century totalitarianism are undoubtedly to be found in the German war economy. It was General Ludendorff who first spoke of a "total war." The forced autarky allowed the German army to lead society in a new way, which Lenin and then Atatürk did not forget. This militarization of society would become the common feature of all these regimes. The community of the army would serve as the model of camaraderie. Force is justification, already present in Marx.
Modernism and its blank slate, like Marinetti's futurism, also served as justifications for the eradication of "the other." A return to savagery was facilitated by this will for a "clean slate." Scientism despises popular experience (3).
This victory of the state over society is manifested by a procedural rationalism that replaces traditional law and its democratic jurisprudence. The dumbing down of the population becomes possible.
Several former defenders of communism refuse the analogy between Nazism and communism, as if the German-Soviet pact had been merely an accident. However, this analogy exists. First, in their genealogy: both derive from socialism and the war of 1914-1918. The first model is, of course, the Leninist model, which would be copied by Hitler (4). Next, we find the same mechanisms in the control over the population : youth recruitment, ideological groupings in the workplace, political police denying the individual an autonomous existence, special military police for internal use (GPU and Gestapo), organized disorder, and opaque competition between services. (5)
One should not underestimate the influences of 20th-century totalitarianisms on other regimes, nor the need and technique that allowed them. All this continues.
The rejection of otherness is the main driver of this need for tutelage, which is at the heart of dictatorships.
The Russian state, having rid itself of communism, remains nostalgic for this control and relies on Orthodox Pan-Slavism. The anarchist writer Eduard Limonov and the intellectual proponent of Eurasianism Alexander Dugin have developed a "national-Bolshevik" ideology opposed to democracy and liberalism.
Deprived of their ideology of liberation by the erosion of their denial of reality and as champions of social inequalities, the Communist Parties had to justify their domination : they abandoned their universalist discourse for a nationalist rhetoric. Humanity, which had been so visibly betrayed, gave way to the community. Controlling the state, they resumed the analogy between the state and the Nation. For totalitarianism, the individual is nothing, the "people" is everything. This notion of "people" transitions from the proletariat to the Nation.
China is currently the best representative of this trend. Some traits are particular to its civilization, but others, especially imperialism, develop in opposition to its past. The main flaw instituted by these regimes is the separation between the Party and society. In their refocusing on particularity, it is the alliance between the Party, the army, and the police that defines this state.
Totalitarianism, as highlighted by Hannah Arendt, is in these regimes the total submission of each individual to the general direction. A simplistic reading of Marx placed the economy at the service of Party bureaucrats. They formed a ruling class whose ideology found refuge in the Nation. Contrary to Western wishes, economic enrichment does not lead to democracy: national sentiment is stronger and more followed than the desire for freedom.
This domination in China has taken a particular turn by distinguishing individuals according to their birth. In this, it has aligned with the Nazi regime. The condemnation of Nazism has become a marker of Western influence. For the former colonies of the USSR or the West, Hitler's regime does not have the infernal image we attribute to it, or at least it does not stand alone in this regard. Thus, China can appear to a vast part of the world as a model of society based on authority, efficiency, and apparent prosperity, in contrast to the spectacle of contradictions displayed by the West.
There has been a misunderstanding about the capitalists' support for Nazism. In the 1930s, German capitalists supported anything that seemed an alternative to communism. The history of Von Papen's defeat shows clearly that they were overwhelmed. While they found great opportunities for profit in war preparation, they had to comply with ideological orders. This state-supervised capitalism is now being experimented with in China, where business leaders are regularly required to account to the Party in exchange for their markets. The Party defends a national capitalism.
The Chinese Communist Party benefits from a greatly improved technique for mass management as well as individual constraint. It has perfected bureaucratic domination, even over capitalists, by planning the economy. In the ideology of growth, the country moves away from the philosophy of balance and harmony of its civilization. The Party has become an oligarchy that claims to be rational, relying on an "opportunistic" interpretation of Marxism, understood as the condition for development.
Imperialism is also a kind of obligation for these regimes based on population control. The existence of an enemy and the perpetuation of mobilization lead them to valorize war and, even more, conquest. Nationalism then becomes natural. If they lack efficiency, they compensate with their longevity and disregard for history : they only need to be strong with the weak and weak with the strong to spread. Language is a stake they never hesitate to shape. State propaganda is strong. For Erdogan or Putin, religion or communism has become purely ideological references. While they control public expression quite well, they simultaneously render themselves even more blind. This is the dilemma that Gorbachev encountered. To stay in power, they have radicalized against a Perestroika-like evolution. They have discovered themselves as National-Communists.
(1) The critique of Nazism must extend to all dominations carried out in the name of a particular essence.
(2) The violent Hegelian state, population control, and its will to be total, for example (See the critique of the totalitarian state by Hannah Arendt).
(3) "The Christian knows he believes, while Lenin believes he knows." (Alain Besançon)
(4) Many communists, like Goebbels, joined the Nazis.
(5) Unlike old dictatorships, generally based on "law and order," these regimes play on permanent disorder.