January 31, 2025 - Classroom

Dr. Brenner stands near the board, cap of a dry-erase marker between his fingers.

He wipes his glasses once with his tie—a habit when the provost's memo about "avoiding partisan statements" still lingers in his thoughts. Today needs clarity without heat.

"Our core question remains," Dr. Brenner said, underlining the day's header. "What is fascism—and how does it differ from other forms of authoritarianism?" He let the room settle around the words before he added, "Today we work the other half of that contrast."

"Before we start, a quick roll call of today's authors," he added, tapping the syllabus. "Robert Paxton on fascism as political repertoire; Roger Griffin on palingenetic ultranationalism; Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism and its traits; Juan José Linz's typology distinguishing authoritarian from totalitarian regimes. Those are our shared lenses."

He pulled out a fresh marker and began with anchors. "Germany's wartime collapse culminated on November 9, 1918, when Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated and leaders proclaimed a republic—the Weimar state born under the shadow of defeat."

"The Treaty of Versailles in June 1919 imposed 132 billion gold marks in reparations and hardened grievances, while 354 political murders between 1919 and 1923 revealed how fragile the new republic remained."

"Hyperinflation peaked in November 1923—one U.S. dollar buying 4.2 trillion paper marks—yet the Dawes Plan delivered a brief 'Golden Years' recovery from 1924 to 1929 before the Wall Street Crash yanked that stability away."

"Hitler tried open insurrection first: the Beer Hall Putsch on November 8-9, 1923 left sixteen Nazis and four police dead, and the treason trial handed him sympathetic judges who sentenced him to five years Festungshaft—he served nine months in Landsberg and emerged preaching what he called a legal path to power rather than another coup."

"He rebuilt the NSDAP as a national machine—Gau leaders, relentless propaganda flights, and Sturmabteilung street muscle—while promising legality even as SA violence like the 1932 Potempa murder signaled how force and law would intertwine under his watch."

"Economic collapse then propelled the Nazi vote from 2.6 percent in 1928 to 37.3 percent by July 1932; despite slipping that November, conservative brokers like Franz von Papen insisted they could hem Hitler in, and President Hindenburg appointed him chancellor on January 30, 1933 after years of Article 48 emergency decrees had normalized rule by fiat."

"From there, the Reichstag Fire Decree on February 28, 1933, suspended core civil liberties—speech, press, assembly, privacy of post and telegraph—and permitted indefinite detention. That decree predated the Enabling Act and made mass arrests legal."

"On March 23, 1933, the Enabling Act authorized Hitler's cabinet to enact laws without the Reichstag or president, including laws that deviated from the constitution. That law transformed a fragile democracy into a dictatorship within weeks."

He capped the marker. "Keep that sequence in your head as we test definitions."

He drew and labeled two boxes on the board. "Authoritarianism," he said, tapping the first, "per Juan José Linz, limits pluralism, leans on emotional legitimacy, discourages political participation, and invests broad, often ill-defined power in leaders. It wants calm and control."

He tapped the second box. "Totalitarianism aims to transform society via a guiding ideology. Think single mass party, pervasive propaganda, secret police, mobilization from childhood up—high-energy politics all the time. It wants remaking, not just control."

He bracketed both. "Fascism can be totalitarian in aspiration, but not all totalitarian regimes are fascist. And plenty of authoritarian regimes avoid the totalizing ideology and mobilization piece."

Jake lifted a hand. "So, if a leader controls the courts and the press but doesn't try to overhaul everything with an ideology, we're clearly in authoritarian territory, not totalitarian?"

"That's a good first pass," Dr. Brenner said. "Then we push the test: Is there a mass party fused to the state? Are citizens mobilized into state bodies? Is there an explicit project to reorganize culture and identity? Those yes answers move you out of garden-variety authoritarianism."

He sketched the 1933 line again—Fire Decree to Enabling Act to Dachau—and wrote "means vs. ends" above it. "Emergency powers became routine in Weimar before Nazis arrived, which tells us tools matter even before intent. Once the Nazis have them, those tools power ideological transformation."

Nisha leaned forward. "That's the hinge, right? Authoritarians tamp it all down—curfews, press limits, quiet repression. Totalitarians need you marching, saluting, singing the same song. Different emotional economies."

Dr. Brenner nodded. "Nicely said."

He wrote three numbered questions on the board and gestured at them. "First question: Can fascism exist without a charismatic leader?"

Marcus spoke first, measured. "You probably need charisma at the start to sell the rebirth myth. But once it's locked in—schools teaching it, media repeating it, courts enforcing it—the institutions do the work. The leader matters less."

"Excellent," Dr. Brenner said. "Paxton would caution that fascism is a repertoire of behaviors, not only a person. Still, early stages usually require a galvanizing figure."

He moved to the next line. "Second: Is the label fascism applicable to 21st-century movements, or is it historically specific to interwar Europe?"

Sarah's pen hovered over her notes. "We can look for the same patterns—taking over media, using militias, claiming emergencies—without saying everything's identical. It's a warning sign, not a final answer."

"Exactly the historian's instinct," he said. "We name mechanisms first; labels come last, if ever."

He pointed to the third line. "And finally: What distinguishes authoritarian regimes from full fascism?"

Emily, front-right, ventured, "Mobilization and myth? Authoritarians suppress; fascists replace—state unions, youth groups, total culture."

"Concise and solid," he replied, underlining "replace."

Then Jake leaned in. "With all due respect, Professor—lots of governments use emergency powers and push national pride. If courts still function and opposition parties still win seats, doesn't calling anything fascist just cheapen the term?"

"That's the risk," Dr. Brenner said. "Historians are allergic to sloppy analogies. So we keep our diagnostics narrow: legal changes to disable checks, mobilization into regime bodies, fusion of party and state, and a transformative myth of national rebirth. If you don't have those together, you likely have authoritarian practices, not fascism."

Billy laughed. "Most folks don't care what you call it. They care if their town got safe and got work. Labels feel like a game for people who never miss meals."

Dr. Brenner inclined his head. "Real concerns matter. Our job is to name the machinery producing those outcomes."

He drew a triangle and labeled its vertices Courts, Media, Security. "Authoritarian rulers tend to work these levers first: reshape courts to avoid losses, concentrate media to control narrative, and align security services." He paused. "Totalizing projects add the party-state fuse—youth groups, cultural chambers, a single ideological frame for art, work, family life."

Marcus raised a hand. "Where do corporatist structures fit? Is that replacement or just control?"

"Under fascism, it's replacement. They shut down independent unions and build new state-run ones. Regular authoritarian regimes just ban unions or make them weak—they don't bother creating replacements."

Nisha glanced at the clock, then back to the board. "If we look at the first week of the new administration—day one had twenty-six executive orders, including reinstating Schedule F, now called Schedule Policy/Career, to strip protections from 'policy-influencing' civil servants, and an order declaring the border an 'invasion.' That's not a one-party state. But the rhetoric and the paperwork are moving together to weaken independent capacity and cast outsiders as existential threats."

Billy cut in, voice sharp. "Calling it an invasion is just telling the truth. People back home are dying. Government drones need to be fireable when they block change."

Jake added, calm. "Executive orders are legal tools. Courts exist. Congress exists. If anything, this shows the system working—policy, lawsuits, elections. Comparing that to Nazi institutions makes everyone stop listening."

Dr. Brenner raised a palm. "Scope and sequence. Today's comparison is about mechanisms, not verdicts. We note: emergency-flavored language, civil service reclassification, and maximalist framing. We also note: functioning courts, opposition, and no single party fused to the state. Both observations can be true."

He underlined "diagnostics, not labels."

"Authoritarianism," he said, "prefers quiet. It narrows the public square, channels participation into safe lanes, and keeps institutions as instruments." He gestured to the second box on the board. "Totalitarian projects insist on constant motion—youth groups, culture ministries, party congresses, a mythic future. Fascism layers an ultranational rebirth story on top."

He stepped into the center of the U. "As historians, we start with sequences and structures: what changed in law, who captured which institutions, and how the public was mobilized or demobilized. Labels come last."

He scanned the room and ensured everyone spoke once: Michael Lee cited Linz, Sofiia noted propaganda's social glue, Amir pointed to Article 48's normalization effect, Richard Waters asked about emergency courts. Each got a quick reply and a nod.

"For next week," he said, "we shift from typologies to processes: democratic backsliding in the twenty-first century—Bermeo's promissory coups and executive aggrandizement; Levitsky and Ziblatt on mutual toleration and forbearance. Read with today's distinctions in mind so we don't flatten every hard-edged policy into the same bucket."

He nodded toward the board. "Hold those three questions. We'll keep returning to them."

That evening, a Class Portal reminder arrived in the class channel:

nisha_d:

The distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism matters because one just wants you compliant and the other wants you transformed. One is suffocation; the other is conversion.

jake_m:

Useful framework. Courts/Congress still matter though. We're nowhere near the institutional fusion Brenner described. Comparing to 1933 Germany seems premature when our checks are actually checking.

billy_james:

why are we even talking about 1933. the only thing that matters is does your family eat. does your job exist. the rest is elite word games while regular people suffer.

nisha_d:

Because history shows what happens when people stay quiet while institutions erode. We're not at 1933 YET but the pattern recognition is the point.

marcus_w:

What's interesting is we're in a moment where some institutions are actively constraining and others aren't. Federal courts blocked the first IG firing attempt. Congress passed laws limiting Article 48-type moves in the 70s. But Schedule F directly attacks those constraints. It's not about single leaders anymore—it's about whether mechanisms of accountability survive restructuring.

nisha_d:

The distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism matters because one just wants you compliant and the other wants you transformed. One is suffocation; the other is conversion.

The distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism matters because one just wants you compliant and the other wants you transformed. One is suffocation; the other is conversion.

jake_m:

Useful framework. Courts/Congress still matter though. We're nowhere near the institutional fusion Brenner described. Comparing to 1933 Germany seems premature when our checks are actually checking.

Useful framework. Courts/Congress still matter though. We're nowhere near the institutional fusion Brenner described. Comparing to 1933 Germany seems premature when our checks are actually checking.

billy_james:

why are we even talking about 1933. the only thing that matters is does your family eat. does your job exist. the rest is elite word games while regular people suffer.

why are we even talking about 1933. the only thing that matters is does your family eat. does your job exist. the rest is elite word games while regular people suffer.

nisha_d:

Because history shows what happens when people stay quiet while institutions erode. We're not at 1933 YET but the pattern recognition is the point.

Because history shows what happens when people stay quiet while institutions erode. We're not at 1933 YET but the pattern recognition is the point.

marcus_w:

What's interesting is we're in a moment where some institutions are actively constraining and others aren't. Federal courts blocked the first IG firing attempt. Congress passed laws limiting Article 48-type moves in the 70s. But Schedule F directly attacks those constraints. It's not about single leaders anymore—it's about whether mechanisms of accountability survive restructuring.

What's interesting is we're in a moment where some institutions are actively constraining and others aren't. Federal courts blocked the first IG firing attempt. Congress passed laws limiting Article 48-type moves in the 70s. But Schedule F directly attacks those constraints. It's not about single leaders anymore—it's about whether mechanisms of accountability survive restructuring.