Con Artists in Politics

Here’s something that occurred to me today: The political movements of Fascism in Italy and Germany in the post-WWI era, and the Communist take-over of Russia at the same time, are often described as being polar opposites of each other, with Fascism usually seen as a backlash to Communism. But, if they are so politically different, why was their final outcome – complete consolidation of political power in the hands of a few – so similar?
Using different methods to gain control – Fascism by popular vote, where Communism usually required a military coup - they were popular with the majority of people living in those countries at the time. In hindsight, it is hard to imagine why. However, if you look at how these parties presented themselves to their people, you start to see the pattern.
Russia had just been through their revolution in February, 1917, to overthrow the Czar and was beginning to set up a popular democratic government. However, that government was slow to take control and was seen as bungling and inefficient by the majority of Russian citizens. When the Bolsheviks in Petrograd seized control from the weak democrats in the October Revolution of that year, it triggered the Russian Civil War that resulted in the formation of the USSR in 1922. The use of Marxist philosophy and promotion of the Communist ideology was designed to appeal to the working masses that had grown dissatisfied with autocratic rule under the Czars. However, in spite of such idealistic campaign promises, what the Russian people ended up with was a heavy-handed dictatorship that paid little more than lip-service to left-wing philosophy.
Germany and Italy, on the other hand, were suffering under intolerable economic conditions in the years following WWI. In Italy, when members of the Fascisto (an individual member was a Fascista, a group of Fascistas were called Fascisti) campaigned on a platform of re-building the economy and, at the same time, national pride, they found favor in the working classes. In Germany, the National Socialist Party used similar rhetoric to gain favor. Both parties laid blame for their nations’ suffering on outside forces, pointing fingers at enemies that were already being despised by the majority – foreign workers that seemed to be taking jobs away from domestic labor, any groups that seemed to be suffering less economic hardship than the majority, and minorities that suffered widespread prejudice for whatever reason. In any case, the goal was to fix the blame on anyone but the people who had the most votes. The use of outright flattery and appeal to the basic prejudices of their chosen demographics worked wonders. Both Hitler and Mussolini were elected by popular votes. They were given unprecedented powers by the people, who expected these men and their political machines to rebuild their nations and restore them to economic power and greatness.
In all these cases, the people were sold a bill of goods by expert con artists. For the Communists, the philosophies of Karl Marx were used to justify complete authoritarian dictatorships that had no intention of giving any “power to the people.” Fascists simply lied their way into power. While claiming to be the ultimate expressions of democracy, all of these governments put all political power in the hands of a few. Regardless of what they called themselves or what political philosophies they espoused, they were nothing more than despotic Autocracies.
With our complicated system of representative democracy, such a tactic has proven to be difficult to implement. Our checks and balances prevent anyone from taking too much power, at least not very quickly. Over time, however, our government is slowly being bought. Our Capitalist ideology is working against us in this case – power and wealth is being concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer Americans every year. Our system of checks and balances, our very process of democracy, is being corrupted by lobbyists and SuperPACs. Money talks, and the rest of us are losing our voice.