The Critical Citizen

Breaking down fascism, history, and the governments that changed the world — one essay at a time.

[thecriticalcitizen]

TOTALITARIANISM AND AUTHORITARIANISM: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Totalitarianism and authoritarianism represent two distinct forms of nondemocratic rule, each defined by how power is organized, how society is controlled, and how deeply the state penetrates the lives of its citizens. While both systems reject political pluralism and concentrate authority in the hands of a leader or ruling elite, they differ fundamentally in scope, ambition, and ideological intensity. Totalitarian regimes seek to reshape society entirely, mobilizing the population around an all‑encompassing ideology, whereas authoritarian regimes aim primarily to maintain political power with minimal ideological transformation. Understanding these differences clarifies why totalitarianism is often considered the most extreme form of modern dictatorship and why authoritarianism remains the more common model of nondemocratic governance.

At the core of totalitarianism is the aspiration to control not only political life but also the social, cultural, and even psychological dimensions of human existence. Totalitarian states pursue a comprehensive project of societal transformation, typically anchored in a utopian ideology—whether racial, nationalist, or revolutionary. This ideological mission justifies the creation of a highly centralized, all‑powerful state that seeks to eliminate all independent institutions. Totalitarian regimes rely on mass mobilization, extensive propaganda, and a pervasive security apparatus to enforce ideological conformity. Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Maoist China exemplify this model: each attempted to remake society according to a singular vision, demanding total loyalty and eliminating any perceived threat to the ideological project. In these systems, the individual is fully subordinated to the state, and private life becomes a legitimate target of political control.

Authoritarian regimes, by contrast, are defined less by ideological ambition and more by political control and regime stability. They restrict political competition, suppress dissent, and centralize authority, but they do not seek to transform society or mobilize the population around a grand ideological mission. Instead, authoritarian rulers often prefer political apathy, encouraging citizens to remain disengaged from public life as long as they do not challenge the regime. Economic and social institutions may retain some autonomy, and private life is generally less regulated than in totalitarian systems. Examples such as Francoist Spain, contemporary Russia, and many military dictatorships illustrate this model: the state demands obedience, not ideological devotion. Authoritarianism thus represents a more pragmatic, less intrusive form of nondemocratic rule.

The role of ideology marks one of the clearest distinctions between the two systems. Totalitarian regimes rely on a comprehensive, mobilizing ideology that seeks to reshape human behavior and identity. This ideology is not merely rhetorical; it structures the entire political order and legitimizes the regime’s expansive control. Authoritarian regimes, however, may employ ideology instrumentally or superficially, but it does not define the regime’s purpose. Their primary goal is to retain power, not to create a new society. This difference explains why totalitarian regimes often engage in mass campaigns, purges, and reeducation efforts, while authoritarian regimes typically rely on more limited coercion.

Another key distinction lies in the extent of state penetration into society. Totalitarian regimes attempt to eliminate all autonomous institutions—religious organizations, unions, cultural associations, and even family life become subject to state oversight. Authoritarian regimes, while repressive, often tolerate limited pluralism in nonpolitical spheres. Citizens may enjoy some degree of personal freedom as long as they avoid political opposition. This difference in scope reflects the divergent ambitions of the two systems: totalitarianism seeks total domination, whereas authoritarianism seeks political dominance.

Despite these differences, the two systems share important similarities. Both reject democratic norms, suppress opposition, and rely on coercion to maintain control. Both centralize authority in a leader or ruling elite, and both restrict civil liberties. Yet the degree and purpose of repression differ. Totalitarian repression is expansive and ideological; authoritarian repression is targeted and pragmatic. Totalitarianism demands active participation; authoritarianism often prefers passive compliance.

In sum, totalitarian and authoritarian regimes represent two distinct models of nondemocratic rule. Totalitarianism is characterized by ideological extremism, total social control, and the ambition to remake society, while authoritarianism focuses on political stability, limited pluralism, and the preservation of power. Understanding these differences is essential for analyzing the dynamics of modern dictatorships and the varied ways in which states can restrict freedom. While both systems undermine democratic principles, totalitarianism stands apart as the most radical and intrusive form of political domination.

Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt, 1973.

Friedrich, Carl J., and Zbigniew K. Brzezinski. Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy. Harvard University Press, 1965.

Linz, Juan J. “An Authoritarian Regime: Spain.” Mass Politics: Studies in Political Sociology, edited by Erik Allardt and Stein Rokkan, Free Press, 1970, pp. 251–283.

Linz, Juan J. “Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes.” Handbook of Political Science, edited by Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby, vol. 3, Addison‑Wesley, 1975, pp. 175–411.

Moore, Barrington. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World. Beacon Press, 1966.

Snyder, Timothy. On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century. Tim Duggan Books, 2017.

Wintrobe, Ronald. The Political Economy of Dictatorship. Cambridge University Press, 1998.

[thecriticalcitizen]

THE QUIET DISMANTLING OF DEMOCRACY

How Democracy can disappear and change our lives.

Democratic erosion from within has become one of the most consequential political developments of the twenty‑first century, marked not by sudden coups or violent seizures of power but by a gradual, legally mediated decline in which elected leaders and partisan institutions undermine the foundations of constitutional governance. Comparative political research shows that modern backsliding typically begins when incumbents—often enjoying genuine electoral legitimacy—use their authority to weaken institutional constraints, delegitimize opponents, and manipulate the rules of political competition while maintaining the outward appearance of democratic procedure. This pattern, visible in cases ranging from interwar Europe to contemporary Hungary, India, and Venezuela, reveals that democratic decline is most dangerous when it is incremental and cloaked in legality rather than openly authoritarian.

A central mechanism of internal democratic decay is the erosion of what scholars call “democratic guardrails,” including judicial independence, a professional civil service, autonomous electoral commissions, and a free press. These institutions are designed to constrain executive power, but they are vulnerable to partisan capture when incumbents frame oversight as obstruction or elite sabotage. Once courts are packed, regulatory agencies politicized, and independent media delegitimized, the institutional architecture that sustains democracy becomes hollowed out. The system may still hold elections and maintain constitutional language, but its capacity to check abuses of power is significantly weakened.

Extreme political polarization accelerates this process by transforming political disagreement into existential conflict. When citizens view their opponents not as legitimate rivals but as threats to the nation, they become more willing to tolerate norm violations committed by their preferred leaders. This erosion of mutual toleration and institutional forbearance—two norms historically essential to democratic stability—creates a political environment in which zero‑sum conflict replaces compromise. Legislatures become arenas of partisan warfare, courts are attacked as biased actors, and the media landscape fractures into mutually hostile information ecosystems, making it increasingly difficult for citizens to agree on basic facts or hold leaders accountable.

At the same time, economic inequality, corruption, and declining trust in public institutions create fertile ground for illiberal appeals that promise order, national renewal, or protection from perceived internal enemies. Leaders exploit these grievances to justify expansions of executive power, often framing their actions as necessary responses to crisis. Digital technologies further intensify these dynamics by amplifying misinformation, enabling targeted harassment of journalists and opposition figures, and weakening the shared civic culture that democratic deliberation requires. As public trust erodes, citizens become more susceptible to narratives that portray democratic institutions as ineffective or corrupt, thereby legitimizing further concentration of power.

Over time, these dynamics produce a cumulative transformation in which democratic institutions remain formally intact but lose their substantive capacity to constrain power. Scholars describe this outcome as “competitive authoritarianism,” a hybrid regime in which elections occur but incumbents enjoy structural advantages so significant that genuine alternation of power becomes unlikely. The central insight of contemporary research is that democracies rarely die in a single moment; rather, they are hollowed out incrementally through legal reforms, norm violations, and institutional manipulation that appear individually minor but collectively alter the character of the regime. This pattern underscores that the most significant threats to democracy arise not from external enemies but from internal actors who exploit democratic mechanisms to erode them, revealing that the survival of democracy depends not only on constitutional design but on the resilience of democratic norms, the strength of independent institutions, and the willingness of citizens to defend them even when doing so conflicts with short‑term partisan interests.

Bermeo, Nancy. “On Democratic Backsliding.” Journal of Democracy, vol. 27, no. 1, 2016, pp. 5–19.

Freedom House. Freedom in the World 2024: The Mounting Damage of Democratic Erosion. Freedom House, 2024.

Huq, Aziz Z., and Tom Ginsburg. “How to Lose a Constitutional Democracy.” UCLA Law Review, vol. 65, 2017, pp. 78–169.

Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. How Democracies Die. Crown, 2018.

Levitsky, Steven, and Lucan A. Way. Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Svolik, Milan W.. The Politics of Authoritarian Rule. Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Waldner, David, and Ellen Lust. “Unwelcome Change: Understanding, Evaluating, and Extending Theories of Democratic Backsliding.” Democratization, vol. 28, no. 1, 2021, pp. 1–26.

[thecriticalcitizen]

READ DICTATORS

Examine the dictators who transformed their countries and the experiences of the people who lived through those changes.

Real Dictators | Noiser History Podcasts

Award-winning podcasts that bring the most thrilling events in history to life.

[thecriticalcitizen]

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF FASCIST MOVEMENTS: WHY PEOPLE JOIN

Fascist movements have appeared in different countries and eras, yet they share a strikingly similar pattern: they attract ordinary people, not only committed extremists. Understanding why individuals join such movements requires looking beyond political slogans and examining the psychological forces that make fascism appealing. These forces include fear, a desire for belonging, the search for identity and purpose, economic and social insecurity, and the powerful influence of propaganda and charismatic leadership. Fascism thrives not simply because of its ideology, but because it taps into deep human needs and vulnerabilities.

One of the strongest psychological drivers behind fascist participation is fear—fear of social change, fear of economic decline, and fear of perceived threats to national identity. During periods of crisis, people often feel overwhelmed by uncertainty. Fascist movements exploit this anxiety by offering simple explanations for complex problems and identifying clear enemies to blame. This psychological mechanism, known as scapegoating, provides emotional relief by transforming diffuse anxieties into targeted hostility. Instead of confronting structural issues, individuals are encouraged to believe that their struggles are caused by specific groups or outsiders. This process creates a sense of clarity and control, even if the explanations are distorted or false.

Another powerful factor is the human need for belonging. Fascist movements present themselves as tight-knit communities united by loyalty, discipline, and shared purpose. For individuals who feel isolated or marginalized, this sense of belonging can be deeply appealing. The movement offers not only social connection but also a collective identity that feels larger than oneself. Members are encouraged to see themselves as part of a heroic struggle to save or restore the nation. This emotional bond can be so strong that it overrides moral doubts or personal reservations. The desire to belong—to feel valued, included, and important—can draw people into movements that they might otherwise reject.

Fascist movements also appeal to the desire for identity and purpose. In times of rapid social change, individuals may feel that traditional roles, values, or cultural norms are slipping away. Fascism responds by offering a rigid, idealized vision of national identity and promising a return to order and stability. This promise can be especially attractive to those who feel disoriented or left behind. The movement provides a clear sense of who one is, who the “enemy” is, and what must be done. This clarity can be psychologically comforting, even if it is built on exclusion and intolerance. The appeal lies not only in the ideology itself but in the emotional certainty it provides.

Economic and social insecurity also play a significant role. When people experience unemployment, declining social status, or a loss of future prospects, they may become more receptive to extremist messages. Fascist movements often present themselves as defenders of the “ordinary citizen” against corrupt elites or threatening outsiders. This narrative can resonate strongly with individuals who feel powerless or ignored. The promise of national revival becomes intertwined with personal hopes for stability and dignity. In this way, economic anxiety becomes a gateway to political radicalization.

Propaganda and charismatic leadership further amplify these psychological forces. Fascist movements rely heavily on emotional messaging, symbolism, and repetition to shape beliefs and behaviors. Propaganda simplifies the world into binaries—us versus them, strength versus weakness, purity versus corruption. This framing encourages people to adopt the movement’s worldview without questioning its assumptions. Charismatic leaders play a central role by presenting themselves as embodiments of national destiny. Their confidence, certainty, and dramatic rhetoric can be highly persuasive, especially to individuals seeking direction or reassurance. Over time, followers may internalize the leader’s vision so deeply that dissent feels like betrayal.

Finally, group dynamics help explain why people remain in fascist movements even when confronted with moral or factual contradictions. Once individuals join, they often experience social pressure to conform, fear of exclusion, and a desire to maintain consistency with their past choices. Group identity becomes intertwined with personal identity, making it difficult to leave. The movement’s rituals, symbols, and shared narratives reinforce loyalty and suppress doubt. In this environment, extreme beliefs can become normalized, and actions that once seemed unthinkable may come to feel justified.

In conclusion, people join fascist movements not because they are inherently drawn to authoritarianism, but because these movements skillfully exploit universal human needs and fears. Fascism offers belonging to the isolated, certainty to the confused, identity to the insecure, and purpose to the disoriented. It provides simple answers in times of complexity and emotional comfort in moments of crisis. Understanding these psychological dynamics is essential for recognizing how such movements gain traction and for developing strategies to prevent their rise. By addressing the underlying fears, insecurities, and social fractures that make fascism appealing, societies can strengthen democratic resilience and protect individuals from being drawn into destructive ideologies.

Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt, 1973.

Eco, Umberto. “Ur‑Fascism.” The New York Review of Books, 22 June 1995.

Fromm, Erich. Escape from Freedom. Farrar & Rinehart, 1941.

Kershaw, Ian. Hitler, the Germans, and the Final Solution.

Paxton, Robert O. The Anatomy of Fascism. Alfred A. Knopf, 2004.

Stanley, Jason. How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them. Random House, 2018.

Tajfel, Henri, and John C. Turner. “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior.” Psychology of Intergroup Relations, edited by Stephen Worchel and William G. Austin, Nelson‑Hall, 1986, pp. 7–24.

[thecriticalcitizen]

THE GOVERNMENT OF FRANCISCO FRANCO IN SPAIN

Francisco Franco’s government, which ruled Spain from 1939 to 1975, represented one of the longest and most rigid authoritarian regimes in twentieth‑century Europe. Emerging from the devastation of the Spanish Civil War, Franco constructed a political order grounded in military authority, Catholic traditionalism, and an uncompromising rejection of liberal democracy. His dictatorship fused elements of fascist organization with a deeply conservative social vision, producing a hybrid system that scholars often describe as authoritarian rather than fully totalitarian. Yet the regime’s early years displayed unmistakably totalitarian features, including pervasive censorship, ideological indoctrination, and the systematic elimination of political opposition. Franco’s consolidation of power relied on the legal dissolution of pluralism, the elevation of the Falange as the sole political movement, and the centralization of all executive, legislative, and military authority in his own hands. This personalist structure ensured that the state’s institutions functioned less as autonomous bodies and more as extensions of Franco’s will, reinforcing a political culture defined by hierarchy, obedience, and national unity as interpreted by the regime.

The ideological foundations of Francoism rested on what the regime termed National Catholicism, a doctrine that intertwined Spanish identity with Catholic orthodoxy and moral discipline. This ideological framework justified the suppression of secularism, regional autonomy, and left‑wing political traditions, all of which were portrayed as existential threats to the nation. The regime’s social policies sought to restore what it considered the “natural order,” privileging patriarchal family structures, clerical authority, and rigid gender norms. Education, media, and cultural production were tightly controlled to ensure alignment with these values, while dissenting voices faced imprisonment, exile, or execution. The scale of repression in the 1940s was immense, with tens of thousands executed and hundreds of thousands subjected to forced labor, political imprisonment, or surveillance. Although the intensity of repression diminished over time, the state’s coercive apparatus remained a constant presence, ensuring that political opposition could not meaningfully reemerge.

Franco’s foreign policy further shaped the character of his government. Sympathetic to the Axis powers during the Second World War, Franco maintained official neutrality while providing material and ideological support to Nazi Germany, most notably through the deployment of the Blue Division on the Eastern Front. After the Allied victory, Spain’s association with fascism led to diplomatic isolation and exclusion from the United Nations. However, the onset of the Cold War transformed Spain into a strategically valuable anti‑communist ally for the United States, resulting in military agreements, economic aid, and eventual reintegration into the international community. This shift facilitated the rise of technocratic elites—particularly members of Opus Dei—who steered Spain toward economic modernization in the 1950s and 1960s. Their policies produced rapid industrialization and urbanization, altering the social landscape even as political freedoms remained tightly restricted.

By the final decade of Franco’s rule, the regime faced growing internal contradictions. Economic modernization had created a more urban, educated, and socially mobile population whose aspirations increasingly clashed with the regime’s authoritarian rigidity. Regional nationalism in Catalonia and the Basque Country intensified, labor unrest expanded, and clandestine opposition movements gained strength. Franco’s refusal to liberalize politically, combined with his advanced age and declining health, produced a climate of stagnation and uncertainty. His death in 1975 opened the path to a negotiated transition to democracy, revealing that the regime’s apparent stability had depended largely on the personal authority of the Caudillo rather than on durable institutional legitimacy.

In sum, Franco’s government was a deeply repressive authoritarian system that reshaped Spain’s political, social, and cultural landscape for nearly four decades. Its legacy remains contested: some emphasize the economic modernization of the later years, while others underscore the profound human rights abuses and the long‑term suppression of democratic life. What is clear, however, is that Francoism constituted a decisive rupture in Spanish history, one whose consequences continued to shape the nation well into the democratic era.

Carr, Raymond. Spain: 1808–1975. Oxford UP, 1982.

Casanova, Julián. The Spanish Republic and Civil War. Cambridge UP, 2010.

Graham, Helen. The Spanish Civil War: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford UP, 2005.

Moradiellos, Enrique. Franco: Anatomy of a Dictator. I.B. Tauris, 2018.

Payne, Stanley G. The Franco Regime, 1936–1975. University of Wisconsin Press, 1987.

Preston, Paul. Franco: A Biography. Basic Books, 1994.

Richards, Michael. A Time of Silence: Civil War and the Culture of Repression in Franco’s Spain, 1936–1945. Cambridge UP, 1998.

Seidman, Michael. Franco’s Spain: The Militarization of Politics. University of California Press, 2023.

[thecriticalcitizen]

THE FRAGILE REPUBLIC: STRUCTURAL COLLAPSE AND THE RISE OF ADOLF HITLER

Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in Germany stands as one of the most consequential political transformations of the twentieth century, not only because it led to the establishment of a totalitarian regime but also because it revealed the vulnerabilities inherent in democratic systems facing profound economic and social crises. Hitler’s ascent was not the product of a sudden seizure of power, nor was it solely the result of his personal charisma or ideological appeal. Rather, it emerged from the convergence of long‑term structural weaknesses in the Weimar Republic, the destabilizing impact of the Great Depression, the miscalculations of conservative elites, and Hitler’s own strategic exploitation of democratic institutions. Understanding this process requires examining the interplay between Germany’s post‑World War I political culture, the evolution of the Nazi Party, the collapse of parliamentary governance, and the legal mechanisms through which Hitler dismantled democracy from within.

The origins of Hitler’s rise can be traced to the profound disillusionment that followed Germany’s defeat in World War I. The Treaty of Versailles, with its territorial losses, military restrictions, and reparations obligations, became a symbol of national humiliation and a focal point for political resentment. Many Germans viewed the Weimar Republic as a fragile and illegitimate creation imposed by foreign powers and upheld by politicians who had betrayed the nation. This environment of bitterness and instability provided fertile ground for extremist movements. When Hitler joined the German Workers’ Party in 1919, he entered a political landscape marked by paramilitary violence, economic hardship, and ideological polarization. His rapid ascent within the party reflected his exceptional skill as a public speaker and propagandist, as well as his ability to articulate a narrative that resonated with those who felt marginalized by the new democratic order. By 1921, he had transformed the party into the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP), a movement that fused radical nationalism, racial ideology, antisemitism, and anti‑communism into a coherent—if deeply destructive—political program.

The failed Beer Hall Putsch of 1923 marked a turning point in Hitler’s political strategy. Although the attempted coup demonstrated his ambition to overthrow the Weimar government by force, its failure revealed the limitations of violent insurrection. Hitler’s subsequent imprisonment provided him with the opportunity to reflect on his approach and articulate his ideology in Mein Kampf, a text that outlined his belief in racial struggle, the need for authoritarian leadership, and the imperative of territorial expansion. More importantly, it convinced him that the path to power lay not in rebellion but in the strategic use of democratic institutions. Upon his release, Hitler rebuilt the Nazi Party into a disciplined, hierarchical organization capable of contesting elections, mobilizing mass support, and projecting an image of strength and unity. During the relative economic stability of the mid‑1920s, the party remained on the political margins, but its organizational structure, propaganda apparatus, and paramilitary forces positioned it to capitalize on future crises.

The onset of the Great Depression in 1929 fundamentally altered the trajectory of German politics. As unemployment soared and the Weimar government proved incapable of effective economic intervention, public confidence in democratic institutions collapsed. The political center fragmented, and extremist parties on both the left and right gained momentum. The Nazis, however, proved uniquely effective in mobilizing mass support. Their propaganda, orchestrated by Joseph Goebbels, portrayed Hitler as a decisive leader capable of restoring national pride and economic stability. The SA, the party’s paramilitary wing, projected an image of order and discipline while simultaneously intimidating political opponents. The Nazis’ electoral success between 1930 and 1932 reflected not only widespread disillusionment but also the party’s ability to appeal to diverse social groups, including unemployed workers, middle‑class voters fearful of economic decline, and conservative nationalists disillusioned with parliamentary politics. By July 1932, the Nazis had become the largest party in the Reichstag, though they never secured an outright majority. Their rise was facilitated by the structural weaknesses of the Weimar political system, which relied on unstable coalition governments and increasingly on presidential emergency decrees.

Hitler’s appointment as chancellor on January 30, 1933, was the result of political miscalculation by conservative elites who believed they could control him. Figures such as Franz von Papen and Alfred Hugenberg viewed Hitler as a useful tool for stabilizing the government and suppressing the left, imagining that his radicalism could be contained within a cabinet dominated by traditional conservatives. President Paul von Hindenburg, initially reluctant, ultimately agreed to appoint Hitler under pressure from these advisers. This decision proved catastrophic. Once in office, Hitler moved swiftly to dismantle the remaining democratic safeguards. The Reichstag Fire in February 1933 provided a pretext for the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended civil liberties and allowed for the mass arrest of communists and other political opponents. The Enabling Act, passed in March under conditions of intimidation and coercion, granted Hitler legislative authority independent of the Reichstag, effectively ending constitutional governance. With this legal foundation, the Nazi regime embarked on a process of Gleichschaltung—coordination—through which political parties, state governments, labor unions, and cultural institutions were brought under Nazi control or dissolved entirely.

The consolidation of power continued through 1934. The Night of the Long Knives in June eliminated internal rivals, including leaders of the SA whose radicalism threatened Hitler’s relationship with the army and conservative elites. This purge demonstrated Hitler’s willingness to use extrajudicial violence to secure loyalty and eliminate dissent. When President Hindenburg died in August, Hitler merged the offices of president and chancellor, requiring the military to swear a personal oath of loyalty to him as Führer. By this point, the transformation of Germany from a fragile democracy into a totalitarian dictatorship was complete. The Nazi regime now possessed the legal authority, institutional control, and coercive power necessary to implement its ideological goals, including the persecution of Jews, political opponents, and other groups deemed enemies of the state.

Hitler’s rise to power illustrates how democratic systems can be subverted from within when economic catastrophe, political polarization, and institutional weakness converge with a movement committed to authoritarian rule. His ascent was not inevitable, nor was it solely the product of personal charisma. It depended on the failures of political elites, the vulnerability of a society in crisis, and the deliberate exploitation of fear, resentment, and national humiliation. The case of Hitler’s rise remains a powerful reminder of the fragility of democratic institutions and the dangers posed by leaders who seek power through democratic means only to dismantle the very structures that enabled their success. Understanding this process is essential not only for historical scholarship but also for recognizing the conditions under which authoritarianism can emerge in any society.

Bracher, Karl Dietrich. Die Auflösung der Weimarer Republik. Cologne, 1955.

———. Die Nationalsozialistische Machtergreifung. Cologne, 1960.

Jackson, Peter. “French Intelligence and Hitler’s Rise to Power.” The Historical Journal, vol. 41, no. 3, 1998, pp. 795–824. Cambridge University Press, doi:10.1017/S0018246X98008000.

Rex, Allwin K., and Karthikeyan M.. “Adolf Hitler and the Rise of Nazism: An Analytical Review of Adolf Hitler’s Regime, Political, and Ideological Impact.” 2025, doi:10.5281/ZENODO.15829732.

Shirer, William L.. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Simon & Schuster, 1960.

Shveitser, Vladimir. “USSR and Germany in the Context of the Events of the 1920s–1930s.” Contemporary Europe, no. 98, 2020, pp. 193–203. doi:10.15211/soveurope52020193203.

Whiteside, Andrew G.. “The Collapse of Weimar and Interpretations of Hitler’s Rise.”

#fascist #fascism #adolfhitler #germany #history #worldhistory #WeimarCrisis #AuthoritarianWarning #EconomicCrisis #NazismHistory #Nazi

[thecriticalcitizen]

NATIONALISM, MASCULINITY, AND THE TARGETING OF GAY MEN

Authoritarian governments have historically treated gay men as destabilizing elements within the social order they seek to impose, revealing how deeply such regimes rely on the regulation of gender, sexuality, and private life to maintain political dominance. Central to authoritarian rule is the construction of a disciplined, obedient citizen whose identity aligns with the state’s ideological vision. Gay men are frequently positioned as incompatible with this vision because they disrupt the regime’s preferred model of masculinity, which is typically grounded in militarism, heterosexuality, and patriarchal authority. This dynamic reflects what scholars describe as state‑engineered masculinity, a political project in which the regime defines normative male behavior as a symbol of national strength. As a result, gay men become targets of authoritarian repression not merely for moral or cultural reasons but as part of a broader strategy of consolidating power.

Criminalization, surveillance, imprisonment, and public denunciation function as tools through which the state demonstrates its capacity to police both public conduct and private identity. These mechanisms appear across diverse ideological contexts: Nazi Germany expanded Paragraph 175 and sent thousands of men to concentration camps; Francoist Spain classified homosexuality as a “dangerous social condition” and confined gay men to labor colonies; Stalin’s Soviet Union criminalized male homosexuality in 1934 and used it to justify political purges; and Latin American military dictatorships deployed police terror, disappearances, and moral‑hygiene campaigns to suppress queer communities. In each case, repression served as a political instrument that reinforced the regime’s monopoly over social norms and legitimized its coercive apparatus.

You can read the full essay at https://www.thecriticalcitizen.org/citizen-blog

[thecriticalcitizen]

My Journey into the World of Fascism

I can trace my fascination with fascism and dictators to a single moment in my teenage years. It was the summer of 1998, long, hot, and slow in the way only teenage summers can be. I wandered into a bookstore looking for something—though I didn’t yet know what—and walked out with Stanley G. Payne’s Franco’s Spain. I didn’t realize it then, but that book would change the direction of my intellectual life.

As I read, something clicked. Payne’s analysis of Franco’s regime opened a world I hadn’t encountered before: a world where power was engineered, where ideology shaped nations, and where the decisions of a single leader could alter the fate of millions. That first encounter didn’t just spark curiosity—it lit a path.

Over the next 28 years, that path became a steady pursuit. I studied some of the world’s most dangerous dictators, examining how they rose, how they ruled, and how their governments left lasting scars on the countries they controlled. I wrote essays, followed historical debates, and kept returning to the same central question: how does authoritarian power take hold, and why does it endure.

Even now, I continue to explore these histories, tracing the echoes of past regimes in the world around us. What began as a teenager’s unexpected summer read has become a lifelong effort to understand the forces that shape nations—and the consequences when those forces turn dark.

[thecriticalcitizen]

NAPOLEON BONAPARTE AND THE ARCHITECTURE OF MODERN DICTATORSHIP

Napoleon Bonaparte’s rise to power at the end of the French Revolution produced one of the most influential authoritarian regimes in modern European history, a government that blended the rhetoric of republicanism with the practical mechanics of dictatorship. Although Napoleon justified his authority as a stabilizing response to revolutionary chaos, the political system he constructed after the Coup of 18–19 Brumaire in 1799 concentrated power so thoroughly in his own hands that it effectively dismantled the democratic aspirations of the Revolution. As First Consul, and later as Emperor, Napoleon created a political order defined by centralized executive authority, strict control over public discourse, and the systematic subordination of representative institutions. His dictatorship was not merely the product of personal ambition but the culmination of structural weaknesses in the post‑revolutionary state, which he exploited to establish a regime that combined military legitimacy, administrative efficiency, and ideological manipulation.

You can read the full essay at https://www.thecriticalcitizen.org/citizen-blog

[thecriticalcitizen]

THE GOVERNMENT OF ANTE PAVELIC IN CROATIA

Ante Pavelić’s government in the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), established in 1941 under Axis sponsorship, represents one of the most radical and violent experiments in fascist state‑building in twentieth‑century Europe. Installed as Poglavnik after the Axis dismemberment of Yugoslavia, Pavelić presided over a regime that fused ultranationalist ideology, racial persecution, and totalitarian political control. Although formally sovereign, the NDH functioned as a dependent satellite of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, and its internal policies reflected the ideological imperatives and strategic interests of its patrons. Pavelić’s government sought to construct an ethnically homogeneous Croatian state through a combination of forced assimilation, mass expulsion, and systematic extermination, targeting primarily Serbs, Jews, and Roma. This genocidal project was not merely an extension of Nazi racial policy but an expression of the Ustaša movement’s own long‑standing ideological commitments, which framed ethnic diversity as an existential threat to Croatian national survival.

The political structure of Pavelić’s government was characterized by the fusion of party and state, a hallmark of fascist governance. The Ustaša movement, once a small exile organization, became the sole legal political force, and its hierarchical, paramilitary ethos shaped the functioning of the state apparatus. Pavelić concentrated executive, legislative, and judicial authority in his own hands, issuing decrees that carried the force of law and appointing loyalists to all significant administrative positions. The regime’s institutions were designed not to mediate social interests or administer policy rationally but to enforce ideological conformity and suppress dissent. Surveillance, censorship, and political terror were central tools of governance, and the Ustaša militia operated with broad autonomy, often exceeding even German expectations in its brutality. The NDH’s legal system was subordinated to political objectives, with racial laws modeled on the Nuremberg statutes providing the framework for exclusion, dispossession, and extermination.

The genocidal policies of Pavelić’s government were implemented through a network of concentration camps, the most notorious of which was Jasenovac. These camps served as instruments of mass murder, forced labor, and terror, and they symbolized the regime’s commitment to reshaping the demographic landscape of the region. The Ustaša leadership pursued a tripartite policy toward the Serb population—one‑third to be killed, one‑third expelled, and one‑third forcibly converted to Catholicism—reflecting a radicalized vision of ethnic purification. Jews and Roma were subjected to immediate persecution, deportation, and extermination, often in coordination with German authorities. The scale and intensity of violence destabilized the NDH’s own administrative capacity, contributing to widespread resistance movements and necessitating repeated German military interventions to maintain order. Pavelić’s government thus became trapped in a cycle of repression and instability, unable to secure legitimacy or territorial control without continuous external support.

Economically and diplomatically, the NDH was a fragile and dependent entity. Pavelić’s government lacked the administrative expertise and institutional infrastructure necessary for effective governance, and wartime conditions further undermined economic stability. German and Italian authorities extracted resources, dictated military priorities, and frequently intervened in internal affairs, revealing the limits of NDH sovereignty. Italian occupation of Dalmatia and German control over key military zones fragmented the state’s territorial integrity, while internal rivalries within the Ustaša movement weakened administrative coherence. The regime’s reliance on ideological militancy rather than bureaucratic competence produced chronic inefficiency, corruption, and mismanagement, exacerbating social discontent and fueling resistance. By the final years of the war, the NDH existed largely as a symbolic entity, sustained only by the presence of German forces and the determination of Pavelić’s inner circle to maintain power.

The collapse of Pavelić’s government in 1945, following the defeat of Nazi Germany, marked the end of one of the most extreme fascist regimes in Europe. Pavelić fled into exile, evading postwar justice, while the NDH’s crimes became central to the historical memory of the region and to the legitimacy of socialist Yugoslavia. The legacy of his government continues to shape political discourse, national identity, and historical interpretation in the Balkans, where debates over collaboration, resistance, and victimhood remain deeply contested. Pavelić’s regime stands as a stark example of how fascist ideology, when combined with ethnic nationalism and external military support, can produce a state apparatus oriented toward systematic violence and demographic engineering. Its history underscores the destructive potential of totalitarian governance and the enduring consequences of political projects rooted in exclusion, hatred, and authoritarian control.

Banac, Ivo. The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics. Cornell University Press, 1984.

Goldstein, Ivo. The Independent State of Croatia 1941–45. Routledge, 2017.

Hoare, Marko Attila. The Balkans: A Short History. Oneworld, 2010.

Jelić‑Butić, Fikreta. Ustaše i Nezavisna Država Hrvatska 1941–1945. Liber, 1977.

Pavlowitch, Stevan K.. Hitler’s New Disorder: The Second World War in Yugoslavia. Columbia University Press, 2008.

Ramet, Sabrina P.. The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building and Legitimation, 1918–2005. Indiana University Press, 2006.

Tomasevich, Jozo. War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941–1945: Occupation and Collaboration. Stanford University Press, 2001.

Yeomans, Rory. Visions of Annihilation: The Ustasha Regime and the Cultural Politics of Fascism, 1941–1945. University of Pittsburgh Press, 2013.

You can read more essay at www.thecriticalcitizen.org

[thecriticalcitizen]

THE GOVERNMENT OF FRANCISCO MACIA NUGUEM IN EQUATORIAL GUINEA

Francisco Macías Nguema’s government in Equatorial Guinea from 1968 to 1979 stands as one of the most extreme and destructive experiments in post‑colonial authoritarian rule. Emerging from the final years of Spanish colonialism, Equatorial Guinea entered independence with fragile institutions, limited administrative capacity, and deep ethnic and regional divisions. Macías, elected as the country’s first president, inherited a constitutional framework that nominally established a federal presidential republic with multiparty participation. Yet the weakness of these institutions, combined with the political culture of personalism fostered under colonial rule, created conditions in which a determined leader could rapidly centralize power. Macías exploited these vulnerabilities with remarkable speed. Within two years of independence, he had dismantled the multiparty system, subordinated the judiciary, and neutralized regional autonomy, replacing the emerging democratic order with a one‑party structure centered on his personal authority. His early consolidation of power reflected a broader pattern observed in several post‑colonial African states, where leaders justified authoritarian measures as necessary for national unity, but in practice used them to entrench personal rule.

The transformation of Macías’s government from authoritarianism to totalitarianism became unmistakable with the adoption of the 1973 constitution. This document abolished federalism, declared the United National Party the sole legal political organization, and named Macías “President for Life,” effectively eliminating any remaining institutional constraints. Yet the legal framework alone does not capture the full nature of his rule. Macías constructed a pervasive cult of personality that elevated him above the state and portrayed him as the embodiment of national destiny. He adopted grandiose titles, mandated public displays of loyalty, and infused political discourse with a quasi‑mystical nationalism that blended anti‑intellectualism, xenophobia, and spiritualism. Schools, churches, and civic organizations were closed or placed under strict surveillance, eliminating the social spaces necessary for independent thought or collective action. This ideological environment, though lacking the coherence of classical totalitarian regimes, nonetheless sought to control not only political behavior but also the cultural and psychological life of the population. Scholars of authoritarianism often distinguish between personalist dictatorships and totalitarian systems, yet Macías’s regime exhibited characteristics of both: the extreme concentration of power in a single individual and the attempt—however inconsistent—to reshape society through coercion and ideological domination.

You can read the full essay at https://www.thecriticalcitizen.org/historical-dictators

[thecriticalcitizen]

Fascist movements across the twentieth century treated gender not as a secondary cultural concern but as a foundational political instrument. Gender norms were mobilized to naturalize hierarchy, justify authoritarian rule, and fuse private life with state power. Fascism’s obsession with order, purity, and national rebirth depended on a rigid gender binary that elevated masculine dominance and enforced feminine submission. These gendered expectations were not merely symbolic; they structured law, labor, education, citizenship, and even the intimate sphere of family life. Understanding fascism therefore requires understanding how gender operated as a political technology—one that shaped identities, legitimized violence, and enabled the construction of an exclusionary national community.

At the core of fascist ideology was a belief in biologically determined social roles. Men were framed as warriors, protectors, and embodiments of national strength, while women were cast as reproducers of the racial community. Fascist masculinity celebrated aggression, discipline, and sacrifice, ideals that aligned with militarism and authoritarianism. This masculine militarism was cultivated through paramilitary organizations, youth groups, and propaganda that glorified the soldier as the ultimate citizen. In contrast, fascist femininity emphasized domesticity, motherhood, and moral purity. Women were expected to embody the nation’s biological future, a role reinforced through policies that rewarded childbirth and punished reproductive autonomy. This ideology of feminine domesticity was central to fascist visions of social order, which relied on women’s unpaid labor to stabilize the household and reproduce the racial community.

Reproductive politics were a crucial site where gender and state power intersected. Fascist regimes treated reproduction as a national duty, implementing policies that incentivized “desirable” births and restricted reproductive freedom. Italy’s “Battle for Births” and Nazi Germany’s Lebensborn program exemplify how the state intervened in intimate life to shape demographic outcomes. These initiatives were part of broader reproductive policies that sought to engineer a racially pure population. Women’s bodies became instruments of state policy, valued primarily for their reproductive capacity. The fascist state thus transformed motherhood into a political obligation, linking women’s biological functions to national survival.

Gender also played a central role in fascist racial ideology. Fascist regimes viewed sexuality and reproduction as mechanisms for maintaining racial purity, and they used gender norms to enforce racial boundaries. Racialized motherhood positioned women as biological borders of the nation, responsible for producing racially “fit” children. Women deemed racially or socially undesirable were subjected to sterilization, persecution, or extermination. Sexual relationships across racial lines were criminalized, and the state policed intimacy to prevent “contamination” of the national body. This sexual policing extended to the regulation of homosexuality and gender nonconformity, which were framed as threats to national strength and racial purity. Fascist eugenics programs institutionalized these beliefs, using medical authority to justify forced sterilization, marriage restrictions, and genocide. Through eugenic violence, fascist regimes weaponized gender and sexuality to enforce racial hierarchy and eliminate those deemed unworthy of belonging.

Despite their ideological subordination, women were not merely passive subjects of fascist rule. Many actively participated in fascist movements, contributing to their growth and consolidation. Women joined party organizations, engaged in welfare work, and disseminated fascist values in schools and communities. This female mobilization reveals the complex ways women navigated and sometimes embraced fascist ideology. Some women found in fascism a sense of purpose, belonging, or social status, aligning themselves with conservative gender norms that promised stability and national renewal. Their participation underscores the importance of examining female complicity in authoritarian movements, which challenges simplistic narratives of women as solely victims. Yet fascist regimes faced inherent contradictions: they relied on women’s labor and political engagement while insisting on their domestic confinement. These ideological contradictions exposed the instability of fascist gender politics, which struggled to reconcile women’s political usefulness with their prescribed subordination.

Masculinity under fascism was inseparable from violence. The ideal fascist man was a soldier even in civilian life, defined by domination, emotional hardness, and unwavering loyalty to the state. Paramilitary groups such as the Blackshirts in Italy and the Brownshirts in Germany cultivated a culture of brutality that normalized violence as a form of masculine expression. This paramilitary culture reinforced fascist ideals of strength and discipline, while also serving as a tool of political intimidation. Fascist movements embraced anti‑feminism, portraying feminism as a threat to national stability and blaming it for social decay. At the same time, fascist regimes persecuted queer people, enforcing homophobia and hypermasculinity while cultivating homosocial environments that glorified male physicality. Violence was not an accidental byproduct of fascist masculinity; it was its defining feature, integral to the construction of a militarized national identity.

Gender nonconformity represented a profound political threat to fascist regimes because it challenged the naturalized hierarchy on which fascism depended. LGBTQ+ individuals faced imprisonment, sterilization, or execution, particularly under Nazi rule. The persecution of queer communities was part of a broader effort to eliminate identities that disrupted fascist visions of order and purity. Early gender‑affirming research and clinics, such as Magnus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science, were destroyed, contributing to the erasure of trans identities and the suppression of alternative gender expressions. Nonconforming bodies symbolized ways of living that defied fascist norms, making gender nonconformity a form of dissent that authoritarian regimes sought to eradicate. The violent repression of queer and trans people reveals how deeply fascism depended on enforcing a rigid gender binary.

In conclusion, gender was not an accessory to fascist ideology but one of its foundations. Fascism constructed a mythic national community through the regulation of bodies, reproduction, and sexuality. It weaponized masculinity, domesticated femininity, and violently suppressed gender diversity. Understanding fascism therefore requires understanding how gender operates as a political force—shaping identities, legitimizing power, and enabling violence. This analysis is not only historical; it illuminates how contemporary authoritarian movements deploy similar narratives about masculinity, family, and national purity. Gender remains one of the most powerful tools for both democratic resistance and authoritarian control, making the study of gender and fascism essential for understanding the dynamics of power in both past and present.

Bock, Gisela. “Racism and Sexism in Nazi Germany: Motherhood, Compulsory Sterilization, and the State.” Signs, vol. 8, no. 3, 1983, pp. 400–421.

Beachy, Robert. Gay Berlin: Birthplace of a Modern Identity. Knopf, 2014.

De Grazia, Victoria. How Fascism Ruled Women: Italy, 1922–1945. University of California Press, 1992.

Gentile, Emilio. The Sacralization of Politics in Fascist Italy. Harvard UP, 1996.

Griffin, Roger. The Nature of Fascism. Routledge, 1991.

Herzog, Dagmar. Sex after Fascism: Memory and Morality in Twentieth‑Century Germany. Princeton UP, 2005.

Koonz, Claudia. Mothers in the Fatherland: Women, the Family, and Nazi Politics. St. Martin’s Press, 1987.

Lauritsen, John, and David Thorstad. The Early Homosexual Rights Movement (1864–1935). Times Change Press, 1974.

Mosse, George L. The Image of Man: The Creation of Modern Masculinity. Oxford UP, 1996.

Oosterhuis, Harry. “Sexual Modernity in the Works of Magnus Hirschfeld.” Journal of the History of Sexuality, vol. 12, no. 1, 2003, pp. 1–37.

[thecriticalcitizen]

Fascist regimes devoted extraordinary attention to the political, social, and psychological formation of young people, treating them not merely as future citizens but as the living embodiment of the regime’s ideological aspirations. Youth were central to fascism’s self‑image: energetic, disciplined, pure, and uncorrupted by the liberalism, socialism, or cosmopolitanism that fascist leaders claimed had weakened the nation. Mussolini, Hitler, and other fascist rulers repeatedly invoked the symbolism of youth to legitimize their movements as forces of national rebirth. This fixation on youth was not rhetorical ornamentation but a core strategic principle. Fascist ideology envisioned society as an organism in decay, requiring regeneration through a new generation molded from childhood to embody the values of unity, obedience, and sacrifice. As a result, fascist governments built elaborate systems of education, propaganda, and social organization designed to monopolize the socialization of children and adolescents, ensuring that no competing institutions—families, churches, or independent youth groups—could challenge the state’s authority. Understanding this dynamic is essential for analyzing how fascist regimes attempted to secure long‑term stability and ideological continuity, making the role of youth in fascism a critical subject of historical inquiry.

You can read the full essay at https://www.thecriticalcitizen.org/citizen-blog

[thecriticalcitizen]

So, I've received some private comments regarding dictatorships not being a government. So I've completed an essay explaining why it's a type of government. Some may or may not agree, and I respect that.

DICTATORSHIP AS GOVERNANCE: UNDERSTANDING POWER, INSTITUTIONS, AND AUTHORITY

Citizen Blog | Learn, Analyze, Understand Today — The Critical Citizen

Explore in-depth analyses of fascism, extremism, and nationalism through scholarly articles and historical case studies at Citizen Blog.

#dictatorship #dictator #government

[thecriticalcitizen]

I’ve officially completed my master’s thesis. Now the focus shifts to preparing for the oral defense and question‑and‑answer session. I’m so close to the end.

[thecriticalcitizen]

COMPARING DONALD TRUMP TO HISTORICAL DICTATORS: AN ANALYTICAL EXAMINATION

The political rise and presidency of Donald Trump have generated extensive debate among historians, political scientists, and sociologists regarding whether his leadership style bears resemblance to that of historical dictators. While Trump operated within the institutional framework of a constitutional democracy, certain rhetorical patterns, governance strategies, and approaches to political conflict have prompted comparisons to authoritarian leaders of the twentieth century. These comparisons do not imply equivalence; rather, they serve as analytical tools for understanding how democratic systems respond to leaders who challenge established norms. By examining Trump’s political behavior alongside that of figures such as Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, and Juan Perón, this essay explores both the parallels and the critical distinctions that shape scholarly interpretations of his presidency.

You can read the full essay at:

The Critical Citizen | Understand, Resist, Empower Today

Learn about fascism and how to resist it through education, community, and awareness at The Critical Citizen. Join us in promoting democracy

[thecriticalcitizen]

THE GOVERNMENT OF OF GENERAL AUGUSTO PINOCHET IN CHILE

The government of General Augusto Pinochet, which dominated Chile from 1973 to 1990, stands as one of the most influential and divisive periods in Latin American history. Born out of the violent overthrow of President Salvador Allende, Pinochet’s rule reshaped Chile’s political institutions, economic structures, and national identity in ways that continue to reverberate today. His ascent began on September 11, 1973, when the Chilean armed forces launched a coordinated coup that ended Allende’s democratically elected socialist government. Although the coup was carried out by a four‑branch military junta, Pinochet quickly maneuvered to become its central figure, consolidating power and establishing himself as the unquestioned head of state. From the outset, his government justified its actions as a necessary response to political polarization, economic instability, and what it portrayed as the threat of Marxist revolution. Yet the methods used to “restore order” involved dismantling democratic institutions, suspending civil liberties, and ruling through decree rather than consensus.

Part of our Dictator's series. You can read the full essay at https://www.thecriticalcitizen.org/historical-dictators