Far as I can tell, I can't really seem to see a difference between a totalitarian method of ruling and a fascist method of ruling. Can anyone give a definative correct differentiating between the two?
For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one hacking at the roots.
Fascism is totalitarian.
Totalitarianism isn't really an ideology, rather a broad term describing forms of rigid governing.
No, I think fascism isn't totalitarianism, but because in history the have been closely aligned people think so. Fascism needs totalitiarianism to succeed in inflicting its ridiculous concepts on all aspects of society.
I use the words you taught me. If they don't mean anything any more, teach me others. Or let me be silent. - Samuel Beckett
Fascism is corporatist, totalitarianism is a catch-all term that covers systems in which the state has a powerful grip on the individual.
I would say that fascism is tainted by a love of the archaic - leader worship, militarism, mysticisim, even, to a certain extent. Totalitarianism is far more precise, scientific and modern - its abilities to control the minutae of every living person's life are much greater than simple drum-banging and marching that fascism uses.
From what I understand, totalitarianism is the ideology of the state that wishes to control every aspect of its subjects lives - as opposed to plain authoritarian states that wish to control the public life of its subjects.
Fascism is more spiritual, romantic, nationalistic, etc. as Jesse says. Totalitarianism does not necessarily mean modern and scientific (certainly theocracies are totalitarian!), though. Most of the totalitarians on this forum -- myself included -- are technocratic, and disagree with nationalism, romaticism, conservatism, etc.
Fascism is totalinarism becuase fascism is the prosperity of the nation at the expense of the indivdual. This can only happen with a totalinarian system.
Exactly - just like Soviet Communism, any ideology that places the needs of the many before the needs of the few becomes, with time and committment, totalitarian.
No communism puts the need of the people first but fascism puts the need of the state as a whole first. Soviet Communism was only totalinarian under Stalin's rule.
The People and The State are practically synonomous - they are both interpretations of a collective incarnation of a group of individuals.
Jesse, I think your definition was backwards, Fascism was first used by Mussillini to describe the effect of banding a nation together to work in an organized manner. Totalitarianism, on the otherhand, simply means every matter of individual life is regulated by a dictator, who has "individual" control. Simply put, Fascists tend to be totalitarian, but it's not necessary. In fact, a Socialist Republic with a hint of Militocracy could possibly fit Fascist, because of it's organization for the purpose of progression and strength.