There is the perennial debate on what it actually means to be a communist, a nazi or a fascist. The best argument I have heard so far is that these three terms refer to the same singular political strategy. It can be referred to more accurately as a syncretic movement. Trying to contextualize it as a political ideology presumes that there are shared values among people that make them all work towards a common goal. The difference is that with these circumstances there were simply too many problems, each affecting too few people to motivate meaningful change through collective effort. Instead of being separate political movements with potentially conflicting interests those conflicts can be resolved by subordinating themselves and relieving themselves of the responsibility for the state while being active participants in the state. Everyone becoming disabused of advancing their personal political interests for the sake of someone who will take responsibility for whatever needs to be done. Then, you have the freedom to do whatever you believe needs to be done and blame your superiors for your actions. There’s no need for political ideologies to reach sufficient saturation to be clearly expressed and easy to categorize. Individuals are able to come up with their imagination of the ideal state and only need to make sure they don’t contradict the beliefs of one other person. That belief is easy to follow when it is “he’s a pretty cool guy and people who don’t think that are bad”. Except that for some reason it’s wasn’t ever that simple. I’m not sure how much more complicated it has to be to achieve the same result. I should make sure everyone says I’m a pretty cool guy just to see how it works out. Then it's just a question of how determined I am to enforce that opinion.