Comparative politics: frameworks and methods

Party Parallels

Communism, Fascism, and Their Parallels in American Political Parties

The main problem of governments took a major turn at the beginning of the modern era. Throughout most of human history, the role of government to the people has been a largely adversarial one. The main issue faced by most administrations was discovering the most effective and efficient way to rule. In most countries, this gradually developed into a vague sort of coerced cooperation, laying the groundwork for modern governments but not really shifting focus from the retention and maintenance of power as both a means and end in and of itself. Though governments are, of course, still concerned with power, the mechanism by which that power is retained has shifted from an adversarial coercion of the populous to -- at least ostensibly -- an effort to best serve the interests of the people, wielding power in order to placate rather than restrain the masses and thus retain power. When taken to extremes, however, this new focus can produce results at least as vicious and terrible as those of bygone regimes.

Communism and fascism are two essentially and necessarily modern forms of governmental extremism that illustrates this truth. The ambitions of the two forms of government are "at once comparable and antithetical," both proclaiming a new form of human society in which all problems were solved, but in ways that were diametrically opposed to each other (Furet & Furet 156). Though both Communists and Fascists attempted to radically alter society in a way that promised to cure all of its ills (and often claimed success in such endeavors despite abundant evidence to the contrary), th systems ultimately required an enormous amount of intense control of their populous -- they ended up restraining just as severely as they claimed to be serving. This, as we shall see, was the fatal flaw of both of these forms of government.

Fascism, at its height, was even more closely aligned with the idea of establishing a totalitarian state that "controls the entire society by absorbing all individuals within it" (Furet & Furet 158). While ostensibly attempting to create a fair and efficient society, the result was that almost every aspect of every individual's life was subject to intense scrutiny and adjustment by the government. George Orwell's 1984 is a dystopian view of a future fascist society, and provides the basic justification for fascism: if the government is ever-present ad all knowing, resources can better be coordinated and utilized, meaning everyone can have more for less. What ends up happening, however, is that everyone must fall in line and do as they are told when they are told, and usually at rigorously maintained schedules, or the system will fail to operate. If humans were machines, fascist efficiency might be ideal, but it allows for no desire or other human qualities and motives.

Communism, at first glance, seems to be the exact opposite of fascism. Its supporters often describe it as a paradise, where each person does what they can and gets what they need. Efficiency is not the consciously stated goal, but it is the "natural state of being" theorized by Communists. In reality, the two types of government are only one step removed from each other; Communism requires just as much control over individuals as Fascism. The essential difference is that in the ideal form of Communism there is no government at all, but instead the people all work together by communal agreement, whereas in Fascism the government remains in complete control, if only (ostensibly) at the interests of the people. Also, Communism requires even distribution of wealth and work based on need and ability, while fascism can allow for a much more stratified society, with each individual's place rigidly defined and enforced.