From lundimatin #511, 10/03/2026
In this article, sociologist Michalis Lianos analyses both the conditions and the deployment of this new form of authoritarianism that is spreading across the world. On the one hand, representative democracy is dying, and on the other, extreme individualisation allows everyone a degree of freedom, provided that its framework is never challenged. And this is the paradox of our time: that fascism is accompanied by the highest level of normalisation of our existences.
In Nazi terminology, Gleichschaltung, meaning “synchronization” or “coordination”, was the process of Nazification by which Adolf Hitler—leader of the Nazi Party in Germany—established a system of totalitarian control and coordination over all aspects of German society. (Wikipedia)
Authoritarianism generates regimes that are expansive in nature, both socially and geopolitically.
This is not the direct consequence of an ambition to dominate, but of a set of values that considers the ordering of the world to be the essential prerequisite for a healthy society. The tragic situation, in which we find ourselves, with the three major world powers under authoritarian regimes and several European societies also tempted by authoritarian culture, is evidence of a socio-political isomorphism initially caused by the lower classes’ loss of control over social space. Between those who manage to establish their discursive influence in the public sphere and those who feel marginalised as a conservative rearguard, rivalry is turning into a dichotomy of perspectives. To succeed in silencing or even humiliating, your opponent with your eloquence leads them to think of other means than speech.
Thus, paradoxes abound: the Rassemblent National and other similar movements in several European countries base their discourse on freedom of expression. The US regime seeks to impose order on its people by force of arms while at the same time claiming to liberate the Venezuelans, Iranians and perhaps other peoples who will follow. The Russian regime is fighting Ukrainian fascism. The Chinese regime defends free trade between peoples…
Behind all this looms the contemporary version of authoritarianism.
Community and the individual
Half a century ago, no one imagined that cutting-edge innovative capitalism would be driven by a society ruled with an iron fist by a communist party. No one thought we would reach a point where every human being would see themselves as an individual, measuring their freedom by their own experience rather than that of others. Thus, today we can focus on the sphere closest to our own expansion, without having the desire or the time to take an interest in that of others. This suits the winners of social competition, the prosperous and ruling classes, as well as those who consider themselves winners, such as “progressives” who satisfy themselves with their intellectual occupation in the media and digital sphere.
But winners and losers share a common trait, provided by the historical contribution of democratic capitalism: individuality. In short, individuals have reached the stage where they naturally demand a society that suits them in every way: ideologically, in their identity, organisationally and symbolically. What is important, then, is not to coexist in soft social-democratic tolerance, but to succeed in imposing on everyone a world that resembles us. Polarisation is therefore increasing, as decisions remain in the hands of a central governing power. As long as direct democracy remains inaccessible, the outcomes of this situation are limited, as we have already explained.
A new authoritarian contract is emerging: everyone is free to pursue their individual goals, provided they do not challenge the premises of their society’s systemic governance. The moral pillars of 20th-century totalitarianism are no longer necessary: belief in God, sexual abstinence, conventional politeness, dress codes, family norms, deference to status, class, age… all belong to an outdated mode of social control. Individual freedom is no longer civic and reciprocal in nature, but experiential and personal. It is experienced in and for oneself, not in and for society. So what remains for the individual is to delegate to a force that he or she imagines capable of “correcting” the world, that is, to shape it in its own image.
Having access to this force is now the only usefulness of the community, specific to men and women of the lower classes who cannot consider themselves adequate on the basis of their personal performance. Their income is mediocre, often partially dependent on various benefits. They cannot paint their self-portrait with the bright colours of the avant-garde. They need a community to belong to, one that will offer them a minimal narcissistic foundation, an essential sense of self-esteem. But the spontaneous means of community building have disappeared in the society of individuals, leading to the need for elitist mediation. This is exactly why a billionaire, heir to a real estate and financial empire, can represent opposition to the “system” and win two elections in the United States. It also explains why an agent of the Soviet deep state commands both popular support and the obedience of the magnates of finance and industry. Or why several colourful, brutal or simply recognisable figures now fulfil the role of what was once referred to by Weber’s term “charismatic” to indicate their authoritarian rise.
The Social Alliance Through Order
This authoritarian alliance thus stands in opposition to both liberal tolerance, stemming from the Enlightenment, and avant-garde radicalism, which readily grants identity-based legitimacy to all those who claim it as symbolic, decolonial, or other forms of liberation. In this way, it draws moderate conservatives into its wake, demonstrating to them that a measured, even “enlightened,” stance is ineffective in a society where “everyone can do, believe, or define themselves as they wish.” Control over a shared symbolic foundation of power is lost, and no one can claim to establish the criteria of truth. Mathematical calculation and online conspiracy theories are considered equivalent, as are legitimate defensive action and the indiscriminate bombing of civilians. It is not that the social struggle has stopped, but that it now concerns the free and multifaceted definition of the nature of the adversary, according to circumstances, individuals, desires, and the rapid invention of new controversies that constantly fuel the instability of socio-political representations. No one knows if yesterday’s revolutionary will turn out to be today’s conspiracy theorist, today’s rights defender a latent sexist, the passionate feminist the “toxic manager” of her NGO, or the victim of discrimination an ally of a violent, fundamentalist, or separatist movement. This gives new meaning to the famous observation by Marx and Engels in the Manifesto of the Communist Party: “All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.” For, while our authors were clearly mistaken about the egalitarian revolutionary potential of this uncertainty and the formidable elasticity of capitalism, they can be useful in understanding the latter’s success through its capacity to inflate the individual to the point where the mastery of truth becomes their political playground.
This is how we arrive at order, both symbolic and operational, as the convergence of social categories that differ significantly. The authoritarian dynamic expresses a combination of divergent forces oriented toward the “repair” of a society without an axiological center or widely accepted common practices. The establishment of order, the coordination—clearly identified by the NSDAP as indispensable to consolidating its power—today implies not a generalised totalitarian effect, but an alignment of a society’s operational forces with the authoritarian project. Large corporations and market institutions quickly align themselves with the authoritarian wave to avoid being targeted by the very governments they supported in imposing this collaboration. From the unexplained disappearance of Jack Ma to the Trumpian alignment of Silicon Valley giants and the discreet rapprochement of French “republican” entrepreneurs with the Rassemblement National, we see the renewed functioning of authoritarianism. Contemporary gleichschaltung is a standardisation that leaves individuals their sphere of free consumption and uncontrolled privacy, while ensuring that their relationships with others cannot call into question collective organisational principles that sometimes directly oppose the principles of individual choice.
Two political levels coexist in this way, without totalitarian oppression. On the one hand, experiential freedom on a personal level, and on the other, the governing authority, which may please or displease some, but cannot be questioned without risking being targeted and severe repression.[1] The message is clear: you can do whatever you want as long as you do not obstruct the establishment of an order that reinstates a strong, paternalistic, and unscrupulous vision of power. The framework becomes clear from this model on all levels. The law, institutions, the public sector, and the private sector are all instruments of the authoritarian mandate: maintaining order in a community where a significant portion fears fragmentation. The allegiance of all, or even active compliance, is not required. It is enough not to cause any trouble.
From our current point in time, this compromise seems to be successfully rejuvenating authoritarianism. Because, as soon as citizens express themselves as they wish, or even openly criticise, the dynamic of political rupture is weakened. Most people react seriously when they are repressed or deprived; only ideologues do so out of civic principle. Thus, with a sustainable level of consumption and a degree of autonomy, authoritarianism significantly expands its scope, as in Italy and Hungary, without the resulting tensions leading to violent collective conflict, that is, civil war. The model becomes tolerable and is exported by adapting to the socio-cultural context, as in Argentina or, previously, in Brazil.
The Geopolitical Domino Effect and Conversion to the Enemy’s Position
It is wrong to assume that this political configuration is ineffective. On the contrary, it amounts to a large-scale exploitation of power, an opportunistic gleichschaltung, seeking to transform its resources into pillars of order, even at the geopolitical level. For example, we see the seemingly absurd policy by which the United States seeks to regain global dominance by using its last remaining immeasurable advantage: military power. “Making America Great Again” is a mandate that entails actions unthinkable for a non-authoritarian regime, actions now carried out with the greatest ease both domestically and internationally. Brutally persecuting foreigners in the streets, intervening without hesitation in university curricula, capturing or eliminating hostile heads of government in the name of democracy, and even attempting the forced purchase of Greenland seemed like grotesque geopolitical fictions. These measures are being implemented today by summarily abolishing the legal framework and diplomatic conventions of international relations, thereby asserting that the ordering of the world is legitimately the top priority of an authoritarian mandate.
The practical success of this legitimation is itself a problem, since it inevitably leads to the ever-expanding coalescence of forces demanding an ordered community. But it is an even greater problem, because it converts the opponents of authoritarianism to authoritarian methods. Little attention is paid to the phenomenon that our enemies convert us, especially when they defeat us.[2] But a brief look at current geopolitical developments is enough to understand how the pairing of authoritarianism and violence is increasingly supplanting the pairing of democracy and peace. Far from being a coincidence, this transition stems from the problems of democracy itself, which, in its agonising “representative” form, is entirely unsuitable for a society of triumphant individualism. Only a democracy that respects the individual’s understanding of their needs and choices in every area can be convincing enough to ward off the pursuit of order and the polarizing conditions that fuel it. Our delay in this regard can only fuel the spread of this new authoritarianism, to which the most powerful will convert the weakest, until the quest for order perhaps leads to the chaos of mass destruction.
Our political race against time must therefore not focus on a direct confrontation with authoritarianism, a struggle that feeds it, but on deepening democracy, which renders it unnecessary.
[1] An excellent and very recent example is the fine imposed on the US section of Greenpeace by a Dakota court, a fine which, in its size, is equivalent to the bankruptcy of the Association.
[2] For an analysis, see Conflict and the Social Bond, p. 82sq.
Gleichschaltung : The normalisation of contemporary authoritarianism
From lundimatin #511, 10/03/2026
In this article, sociologist Michalis Lianos analyses both the conditions and the deployment of this new form of authoritarianism that is spreading across the world. On the one hand, representative democracy is dying, and on the other, extreme individualisation allows everyone a degree of freedom, provided that its framework is never challenged. And this is the paradox of our time: that fascism is accompanied by the highest level of normalisation of our existences.
In Nazi terminology, Gleichschaltung, meaning “synchronization” or “coordination”, was the process of Nazification by which Adolf Hitler—leader of the Nazi Party in Germany—established a system of totalitarian control and coordination over all aspects of German society. (Wikipedia)
Authoritarianism generates regimes that are expansive in nature, both socially and geopolitically.
This is not the direct consequence of an ambition to dominate, but of a set of values that considers the ordering of the world to be the essential prerequisite for a healthy society. The tragic situation, in which we find ourselves, with the three major world powers under authoritarian regimes and several European societies also tempted by authoritarian culture, is evidence of a socio-political isomorphism initially caused by the lower classes’ loss of control over social space. Between those who manage to establish their discursive influence in the public sphere and those who feel marginalised as a conservative rearguard, rivalry is turning into a dichotomy of perspectives. To succeed in silencing or even humiliating, your opponent with your eloquence leads them to think of other means than speech.
Thus, paradoxes abound: the Rassemblent National and other similar movements in several European countries base their discourse on freedom of expression. The US regime seeks to impose order on its people by force of arms while at the same time claiming to liberate the Venezuelans, Iranians and perhaps other peoples who will follow. The Russian regime is fighting Ukrainian fascism. The Chinese regime defends free trade between peoples…
Behind all this looms the contemporary version of authoritarianism.
Community and the individual
Half a century ago, no one imagined that cutting-edge innovative capitalism would be driven by a society ruled with an iron fist by a communist party. No one thought we would reach a point where every human being would see themselves as an individual, measuring their freedom by their own experience rather than that of others. Thus, today we can focus on the sphere closest to our own expansion, without having the desire or the time to take an interest in that of others. This suits the winners of social competition, the prosperous and ruling classes, as well as those who consider themselves winners, such as “progressives” who satisfy themselves with their intellectual occupation in the media and digital sphere.
But winners and losers share a common trait, provided by the historical contribution of democratic capitalism: individuality. In short, individuals have reached the stage where they naturally demand a society that suits them in every way: ideologically, in their identity, organisationally and symbolically. What is important, then, is not to coexist in soft social-democratic tolerance, but to succeed in imposing on everyone a world that resembles us. Polarisation is therefore increasing, as decisions remain in the hands of a central governing power. As long as direct democracy remains inaccessible, the outcomes of this situation are limited, as we have already explained.
A new authoritarian contract is emerging: everyone is free to pursue their individual goals, provided they do not challenge the premises of their society’s systemic governance. The moral pillars of 20th-century totalitarianism are no longer necessary: belief in God, sexual abstinence, conventional politeness, dress codes, family norms, deference to status, class, age… all belong to an outdated mode of social control. Individual freedom is no longer civic and reciprocal in nature, but experiential and personal. It is experienced in and for oneself, not in and for society. So what remains for the individual is to delegate to a force that he or she imagines capable of “correcting” the world, that is, to shape it in its own image.
Having access to this force is now the only usefulness of the community, specific to men and women of the lower classes who cannot consider themselves adequate on the basis of their personal performance. Their income is mediocre, often partially dependent on various benefits. They cannot paint their self-portrait with the bright colours of the avant-garde. They need a community to belong to, one that will offer them a minimal narcissistic foundation, an essential sense of self-esteem. But the spontaneous means of community building have disappeared in the society of individuals, leading to the need for elitist mediation. This is exactly why a billionaire, heir to a real estate and financial empire, can represent opposition to the “system” and win two elections in the United States. It also explains why an agent of the Soviet deep state commands both popular support and the obedience of the magnates of finance and industry. Or why several colourful, brutal or simply recognisable figures now fulfil the role of what was once referred to by Weber’s term “charismatic” to indicate their authoritarian rise.
The Social Alliance Through Order
This authoritarian alliance thus stands in opposition to both liberal tolerance, stemming from the Enlightenment, and avant-garde radicalism, which readily grants identity-based legitimacy to all those who claim it as symbolic, decolonial, or other forms of liberation. In this way, it draws moderate conservatives into its wake, demonstrating to them that a measured, even “enlightened,” stance is ineffective in a society where “everyone can do, believe, or define themselves as they wish.” Control over a shared symbolic foundation of power is lost, and no one can claim to establish the criteria of truth. Mathematical calculation and online conspiracy theories are considered equivalent, as are legitimate defensive action and the indiscriminate bombing of civilians. It is not that the social struggle has stopped, but that it now concerns the free and multifaceted definition of the nature of the adversary, according to circumstances, individuals, desires, and the rapid invention of new controversies that constantly fuel the instability of socio-political representations. No one knows if yesterday’s revolutionary will turn out to be today’s conspiracy theorist, today’s rights defender a latent sexist, the passionate feminist the “toxic manager” of her NGO, or the victim of discrimination an ally of a violent, fundamentalist, or separatist movement. This gives new meaning to the famous observation by Marx and Engels in the Manifesto of the Communist Party: “All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.” For, while our authors were clearly mistaken about the egalitarian revolutionary potential of this uncertainty and the formidable elasticity of capitalism, they can be useful in understanding the latter’s success through its capacity to inflate the individual to the point where the mastery of truth becomes their political playground.
This is how we arrive at order, both symbolic and operational, as the convergence of social categories that differ significantly. The authoritarian dynamic expresses a combination of divergent forces oriented toward the “repair” of a society without an axiological center or widely accepted common practices. The establishment of order, the coordination—clearly identified by the NSDAP as indispensable to consolidating its power—today implies not a generalised totalitarian effect, but an alignment of a society’s operational forces with the authoritarian project. Large corporations and market institutions quickly align themselves with the authoritarian wave to avoid being targeted by the very governments they supported in imposing this collaboration. From the unexplained disappearance of Jack Ma to the Trumpian alignment of Silicon Valley giants and the discreet rapprochement of French “republican” entrepreneurs with the Rassemblement National, we see the renewed functioning of authoritarianism. Contemporary gleichschaltung is a standardisation that leaves individuals their sphere of free consumption and uncontrolled privacy, while ensuring that their relationships with others cannot call into question collective organisational principles that sometimes directly oppose the principles of individual choice.
Two political levels coexist in this way, without totalitarian oppression. On the one hand, experiential freedom on a personal level, and on the other, the governing authority, which may please or displease some, but cannot be questioned without risking being targeted and severe repression.[1] The message is clear: you can do whatever you want as long as you do not obstruct the establishment of an order that reinstates a strong, paternalistic, and unscrupulous vision of power. The framework becomes clear from this model on all levels. The law, institutions, the public sector, and the private sector are all instruments of the authoritarian mandate: maintaining order in a community where a significant portion fears fragmentation. The allegiance of all, or even active compliance, is not required. It is enough not to cause any trouble.
From our current point in time, this compromise seems to be successfully rejuvenating authoritarianism. Because, as soon as citizens express themselves as they wish, or even openly criticise, the dynamic of political rupture is weakened. Most people react seriously when they are repressed or deprived; only ideologues do so out of civic principle. Thus, with a sustainable level of consumption and a degree of autonomy, authoritarianism significantly expands its scope, as in Italy and Hungary, without the resulting tensions leading to violent collective conflict, that is, civil war. The model becomes tolerable and is exported by adapting to the socio-cultural context, as in Argentina or, previously, in Brazil.
The Geopolitical Domino Effect and Conversion to the Enemy’s Position
It is wrong to assume that this political configuration is ineffective. On the contrary, it amounts to a large-scale exploitation of power, an opportunistic gleichschaltung, seeking to transform its resources into pillars of order, even at the geopolitical level. For example, we see the seemingly absurd policy by which the United States seeks to regain global dominance by using its last remaining immeasurable advantage: military power. “Making America Great Again” is a mandate that entails actions unthinkable for a non-authoritarian regime, actions now carried out with the greatest ease both domestically and internationally. Brutally persecuting foreigners in the streets, intervening without hesitation in university curricula, capturing or eliminating hostile heads of government in the name of democracy, and even attempting the forced purchase of Greenland seemed like grotesque geopolitical fictions. These measures are being implemented today by summarily abolishing the legal framework and diplomatic conventions of international relations, thereby asserting that the ordering of the world is legitimately the top priority of an authoritarian mandate.
The practical success of this legitimation is itself a problem, since it inevitably leads to the ever-expanding coalescence of forces demanding an ordered community. But it is an even greater problem, because it converts the opponents of authoritarianism to authoritarian methods. Little attention is paid to the phenomenon that our enemies convert us, especially when they defeat us.[2] But a brief look at current geopolitical developments is enough to understand how the pairing of authoritarianism and violence is increasingly supplanting the pairing of democracy and peace. Far from being a coincidence, this transition stems from the problems of democracy itself, which, in its agonising “representative” form, is entirely unsuitable for a society of triumphant individualism. Only a democracy that respects the individual’s understanding of their needs and choices in every area can be convincing enough to ward off the pursuit of order and the polarizing conditions that fuel it. Our delay in this regard can only fuel the spread of this new authoritarianism, to which the most powerful will convert the weakest, until the quest for order perhaps leads to the chaos of mass destruction.
Our political race against time must therefore not focus on a direct confrontation with authoritarianism, a struggle that feeds it, but on deepening democracy, which renders it unnecessary.
[1] An excellent and very recent example is the fine imposed on the US section of Greenpeace by a Dakota court, a fine which, in its size, is equivalent to the bankruptcy of the Association.
[2] For an analysis, see Conflict and the Social Bond, p. 82sq.