Inverted totalitarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Inverted totalitarianism is a term coined by political philosopher Sheldon Wolin in 2003 to describe the emerging form of government of the United States. Wolin believes that the United States is increasingly turning into an illiberal democracy, and uses the term "inverted totalitarianism" to illustrate similarities and differences between the United States governmental system and totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union.[1][2][3][4] In Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt by Chris Hedges and Joe Sacco, inverted totalitarianism is described as a system where corporations have corrupted and subverted democracy and where economics trumps politics.[5] In inverted totalitarianism, every natural resource and every living being is commodified and exploited to collapse as the citizenry is lulled and manipulated into surrendering their liberties and their participation in government through excess consumerism and sensationalism.

Inverted totalitarianism and managed democracy[edit]

Wolin holds that the United States has been increasingly adopting totalitarian tendencies as a result of transformations undergone during the military mobilization required to fight the Axis powers in the 1940s, and the subsequent campaign to contain the Soviet Union during the Cold War:[2]

He refers to the U.S. using the proper noun "Superpower", to emphasize the current position of the United States as the only global superpower.

While the versions of totalitarianism represented by Nazism and Fascism consolidated power by suppressing liberal political practices that had sunk only shallow cultural roots, Superpower represents a drive towards totality that draws from the setting where liberalism and democracy have been established for more than two centuries. It is Nazism turned upside-down, “inverted totalitarianism.” While it is a system that aspires to totality, it is driven by an ideology of the cost-effective rather than of a “master race” (Herrenvolk), by the material rather than the “ideal.”[6]

According to Wolin, there are three main ways in which inverted totalitarianism is the inverted form of classical totalitarianism.

  • Whereas in Nazi Germany the state dominated economic actors, in inverted totalitarianism, corporations through political contributions and lobbying, dominate the United States, with the government acting as the servant of large corporations. This is considered "normal" rather than corrupt.[7]
  • While the Nazi regime aimed at the constant political mobilization of the populace, with its Nuremberg rallies, Hitler Youth, and so on, inverted totalitarianism aims for the mass of the populace to be in a persistent state of political apathy. The only type of political activity expected or desired from the citizenry is voting. Low electoral turnouts are favorably received as an indication that the bulk of the populace has given up hope that the government will ever help them.[8]
  • While the Nazis openly mocked democracy, the United States maintains the conceit that it is the model of democracy for the whole world.[9] Wolin writes:

Inverted totalitarianism reverses things. It is all politics all of the time but a politics largely untempered by the political. Party squabbles are occasionally on public display, and there is a frantic and continuous politics among factions of the party, interest groups, competing corporate powers, and rival media concerns. And there is, of course, the culminating moment of national elections when the attention of the nation is required to make a choice of personalities rather than a choice between alternatives. What is absent is the political, the commitment to finding where the common good lies amidst the welter of well-financed, highly organized, single-minded interests rabidly seeking governmental favors and overwhelming the practices of representative government and public administration by a sea of cash.[10]

Managed democracy[edit]

Wolin believes the democracy of the United States is sanitized of political participation, and describes it as managed democracy: "a political form in which governments are legitimated by elections that they have learned to control".[11] Under managed democracy, the electorate is prevented from having a significant impact on policies adopted by the state through the continuous employment of public relations techniques.[12]

Wolin believes the United States resembles Nazi Germany in one major way without an inversion: the essential role propaganda plays in the system. According to Wolin, whereas the production of propaganda was crudely centralized in Nazi Germany, in the United States it is left to highly concentrated media corporations, thus maintaining the illusion of a "free press".[13] According to this model, dissent is allowed, though the corporate media serve as a filter, allowing most people, with limited time available to keep themselves apprised of current events, to hear only points of view that the corporate media deem "serious".[14][4][15]

According to Wolin, the United States has two main totalizing dynamics:

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Wolin 2008.
  2. ^ a b Hedges, Chris, Death of the Liberal Class, pp. 14, 23–24, 25–26, 196, 200–1 .
  3. ^ Hedges, Chris (April 2011), The World As It Is, Nation Books, pp. 3–7, ISBN 978-1-56858-640-3 .
  4. ^ a b c d Hedges, Chris (2010-01-24), Democracy in America Is a Useful Fiction, Truth Dig .
  5. ^ Chris Hedges and Joe Sacco (2012). Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt. Nation Books. ISBN 1568586434 p. 238
  6. ^ Wolin 2004, p. 591.
  7. ^ Wolin 2008, pp. 51,140.
  8. ^ Wolin 2008, p. 64.
  9. ^ Wolin 2008, p. 52.
  10. ^ Wolin 2008, p. 66.
  11. ^ Wolin 2008, p. 47.
  12. ^ Wolin 2008, p. 60.
  13. ^ Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Corporate Propaganda versus Freedom and Liberty .
  14. ^ Wolin 2004, p. 594.
  15. ^ a b c Hedges, Chris (2012-10-03), US Elections: Pick Your Poison (interview), The Real News Network .
  16. ^ Wolin 2008, pp. 82–88.
  17. ^ Wolin 2008, pp. 27, 64–65.
  18. ^ Wolin 2008, p. 195.

References[edit]

External links[edit]