Fascist party dictatorship was a stable state apparatus, not a movement

Evidence

The fact that the seizure of power by the Nazis was usually identified with such a one-party dictatorship merely showed how much political thinking was still rooted in the old established patterns, and how little the people were prepared for what really was to come. The only typically modern aspect of the Fascist party dictatorship is that here, too, the party insisted that it was a movement; that it was nothing of the kind, but merely usurped the slogan “movement” in order to attract the masses, became evident as soon as it seized the state machine without drastically changing the power structure of the country, being content to fill all government positions with party members. It was precisely through the identification of the party with the state, which both the Nazis and the Bolsheviks have always carefully avoided, that the party ceased to be a “movement” and became tied to the basically stable structure of the state. — Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 645

Categorization

• DEFINE: Arendt distinguishes the Fascist one-party dictatorship (which merely usurped the ‘movement’ slogan and then fused with the state) from genuine totalitarian movements that destroy the state.
• XREF: This movement-vs-state distinction will reappear in Arendt’s chapter on totalitarian movements proper, and connects to her later analysis of the totalitarian party as a state-like structure.