All Totalitarians Are Not Created Equal

Totalitarianism is a method of control, subjugation, and reshaping of the individual to the requirements of the state. In the first half of the twentieth century, as the bonds of imperialism dissolved, many embraced totalitarian regimes. All but Communist China have failed. It may be helpful to reflect on how they emerged, how briefly they were on the world stage, and, ultimately, how little they achieved. 

The German Empire was dismantled following World War I (WWI). The Weimar Republic was created to execute the reparations required in the Treaty of Versailles at the expense of the German people. The global depression in 1929 allowed the National Socialists and Adolf Hitler to gain power. He was appointed Chancelor in 1933 by President Hindenburg. 

The Czarist government’s performance in WWI was abysmal. In what is arguably the most successful and cost-effective wartime operation of all time, Germany smuggled Lenin into Russia and funded the successful efforts of his nascent socialist party to overthrow the Czar. Lenin withdrew from the war and moved quickly to a totalitarian communist state. As with the PRC, massive investments produced little return as the population failed to respond to a dehumanizing system. The USSR (and its Warsaw Pact satellites) imploded after only eighty years, ending the Cold War. We will return to post-communist Russia below. 

The Kingdom of Italy also suffered on the WWI battlefield and from an incompetent post-war government. In the 1920s Benito Mussolini, like Hitler a few years later, rode the wave of dissatisfaction into the Prime Minister’s Office. He quickly converted his position into a single-party dictatorship. In fact, the term totalitarian was coined in the 1920s by Italian Fascist theorists as a positive way to describe their philosophy. Mussolini enjoyed initial success by investing heavily in infrastructure, public works, and bureaucracy. He squandered national wealth on foreign military campaigns in the Balkans and Africa. His subsequent partnership with Hitler ultimately led to defeat in WWII. Fascist Italy lasted only twenty-nine years. 

While the end of WWII was also the end of right-wing totalitarianism, communist totalitarianism remained alive and well. The Soviet Union and the People’s Republic offered an alternative to political democracy and market economics, initiating the Cold War. 

The collapse of the USSR in 1991 ended the Cold War. Many were optimistic, anticipating that Russia would follow the example of Germany. In the end, Russia chose to follow 1933 rather than 1945 Germany. After a decade of struggling, the realities of life under totalitarian communism faded into soft focus leaving memories of predictable stability and past national glory. The stage was set for a return to totalitarianism without a driving political philosophy. 

In August 1999, Boris Yeltsin, the President of Russia, appointed Vladimir Putin as Prime Minister. His resignation that December left Putin in charge. He chose to follow a new path, using a totalitarian structure to create a kleptocracy administered by a small circle of oligarchs. 

Uniquely, he sold off government assets to handpicked cronies at discount prices while expanding government subsidies to appease special interest groups. Both tactics were designed to foster loyalty while diminishing the ability of the disaffected to protest or effectively counter.

What lessons can be drawn for the United States? It is demonstrably true that for many years the U.S. legislature has abdicated much of its responsibility. For example, Congress has refused to exercise its Constitutional responsibility to declare war. Since WWII, decisions on war and peace are left to the Executive, without any representational expression of the popular will. This expansion of executive power has been supported by the judiciary, weakening the structural foundation of Constitutional checks and balances. Historic norms and practices that have traditionally buffered the worst excesses also seem to have lost their power. 

Accusations of Executive overreach have become commonplace for all administrations since the Watergate scandal in the 1970s. During the Biden Presidency, many found public health directives and vaccine mandates during the COVID pandemic extreme, an example of Executive overreach, and a danger to civil liberties. 

The current U.S. administration found electoral success by focusing on discontent, fear, and grievance, promising a return to past glory. President Trump has moved quickly to deliver on his agenda. His actions on due process, definitions of citizenship, and government structure have raised additional concerns about the impact of Executive power on citizen’s rights. These facts, in isolation, are not necessarily a concern and the vagaries of each individual social, economic, and security policy can still be debated. Today, the U.S. is not totalitarian. 

For how much longer will such debate be allowed? The process can be slow, but once the tipping point is reached, the transition to a totalitarian state is swift and ruthless. At least through the mid-term elections, it does not seem possible. If the next cycle brings a more supine Congress, legislation or an executive order could be the catalyst.  

If this were to come to pass, what direction would U.S. totalitarianism take? One must be careful to separate superficial from substantive similarities. It is unlikely that President Trump would suddenly embrace a planned economic system like Soviet or Chinese communism.

Comparing the United States to post WWI Germany or Italy also does not hold up. Since the sub-prime mortgage crisis of 2008, The U.S. government has provided an impressive level of prosperity. There was no legitimate reason for economic discontent to fuel a change in government. Likewise, the actions of the current administration do not mirror those taken by Hiter and Mussolini.

That leaves the example of Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Major businesses and economic sectors are controlled by hand-picked supporters whose hold on power is tied to Putin’s survival and continued goodwill. A weak government rubber stamps decisions and distributes largesse as needed to address popular discontent. 

President Trump has commented positively on Putin and his ability to direct events and control the narrative. This appears to be part of the allure. DOGE efforts appear to be focused on discrediting and reducing government. Taken together with pervasive statements about privatizing inherently governmental functions, this indicates a strong desire to emulate the Russian model in substantive ways. 

It is good and healthy for U.S. citizens to debate the laws and policies of their government. Democratic elections and due process are among the most important blessings of our constitutional republic and must be protected. It is dangerous to allow the debate about what direction our democracy should take to morph into a discussion about what type of government we should have. Totalitarianism does not work and is, by definition, undemocratic. There are no examples of a successful, free, and prosperous totalitarian regime. A move in this direction is fraught with peril. 

Martin A. Perryman, a retired U.S. Army Colonel, is a defense and foreign policy expert.