Totalitarianism: Difference between revisions
m Protected Totalitarianism: Heavy vandalism from multiple sources. [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] |
... but no time for this now - rv self |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{sprotected}} |
{{sprotected}} |
||
'''Totalitarianism''' is a term employed by [[political science|political scientists]], especially those in the field of [[comparative politics]], to describe modern [[regime]]s in which the [[state]] regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior. |
'''Totalitarianism''' is a term employed by [[political science|political scientists]], especially those in the field of [[comparative politics]], to describe modern [[regime]]s in which the [[state]] regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior. |
||
Totalitarian regimes maintain themselves in [[political power]] by means of [[single-party state]], [[secret police]], [[propaganda]] disseminated through the state-controlled [[mass media]], [[personality cult]], regulation and restriction of [[freedom of speech|free discussion and criticism]], the use of [[mass surveillance]], and widespread use of [[Terrorism|terror]] tactics (political purges and persecution of specific groups of people). |
|||
Such regimes are generally held in disdain by Western writers such as [[Hannah Arendt]] and [[Karl Popper]], with notable exceptions such as [[Noam Chomsky]]. |
|||
| ⚫ | Critics of the |
||
==Usage of the term== |
==Usage of the term== |
||
The most influential scholars of totalitarianism, such as [[Karl Popper]], [[Hannah Arendt]], [[Carl Friedrich]], [[Zbigniew Brzezinski]], and [[Juan Linz]] have each described totalitarianism in a slightly different way. Common to all definitions is the attempt to mobilize entire populations in support of the state and a political or religious [[ideology]], and the intolerance of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, such as involvement with [[labour union]]s, non-sanctioned [[church]]es or opposition [[political party|political parties]]. |
|||
| ⚫ | Critics of the term contend that the concept lacks explanatory power and can be misapplied. Governments classified as "totalitarian" often lack characteristics associated with the term, they say. Governments which appear monolithic from the outside may actually incorporate several distinct groups, such as the army, political leaders, industrialists, which compete for power and influence <ref> See for example [[Hannah Arendt]]'s ''[[Eichmann in Jerusalem]]'', chapter IX on the Reich's deportations. [[Functionalism versus intentionalism|Functionalists]] in particular have argued in favor of this thesis. </ref>. These regimes may exhibit a degree [[pluralism]] through the involvement of several groups in the political process.<ref>Peter Burnham "Totalitarianism" ''The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics''. Ed. Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan. Oxford University Press, 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.</ref> |
||
While originally referring to an 'all-embracing, total state,' the label has been applied to a wide variety of regimes and orders of rule in a critical sense. [[Karl Popper]], in ''[[The Open Society and Its Enemies]]'' (1945) and ''The Poverty of Historicism'' (1961) developed an influential critique of totalitarianism: in both works, he contrasted the "open society" of [[liberal democracy]] with totalitarianism, and argued that the latter is grounded in the belief that history moves toward an immutable future, in accord with knowable laws. During the [[Cold War]] period, the term gained renewed currency, especially following the publication of [[Hannah Arendt]]'s ''[[The Origins of Totalitarianism]]'' (1951). |
While originally referring to an 'all-embracing, total state,' the label has been applied to a wide variety of regimes and orders of rule in a critical sense. [[Karl Popper]], in ''[[The Open Society and Its Enemies]]'' (1945) and ''The Poverty of Historicism'' (1961) developed an influential critique of totalitarianism: in both works, he contrasted the "open society" of [[liberal democracy]] with totalitarianism, and argued that the latter is grounded in the belief that history moves toward an immutable future, in accord with knowable laws. During the [[Cold War]] period, the term gained renewed currency, especially following the publication of [[Hannah Arendt]]'s ''[[The Origins of Totalitarianism]]'' (1951). |
||
| Line 13: | Line 16: | ||
== Hannah Arendt's thesis == |
== Hannah Arendt's thesis == |
||
[[Hannah Arendt]] argued that while [[Italian fascism]] constituted a classical case of [[dictatorship]], [[Nazism]] and [[Stalinism]] fundamentally differed from such forms of [[tyranny]], in that the [[single-party state]] was completely subjected to the [[political party|party]], either a representative of the [[nation]] (conceived by Nazism as a ''[[Volksgemeinschaft]]'' - a Nazi neologism for "National community" -, which could only be achieved by gaining control of all aspects of cultural and social life - ''[[Gleichschaltung]]'') or of the [[proletariat]]. To the contrary, according to Arendt's controversial thesis, Mussolini's fascism still respected the authority of the state on the party. Arendt also underlined the role of [[pan-Germanism]] and [[pan-Slavism]] in both Nazism and Stalinism, which she described as "continental [[imperialism]]s" whom connected themselves to the [[racism|racist discourse]] born during the [[New Imperialism]] period. Hannah Arendt's thesis on the totalitarian identity between Nazism and Stalinism has inspired a generation of thinkers, and has been also widely contested. It has been argued that fascism shared more traits with Nazism, including a common ideology, which set these two regimes apart from [[communism|communist]] regimes such as the [[USSR]]. |
[[Hannah Arendt]] argued that while [[Italian fascism]] constituted a classical case of [[dictatorship]], [[Nazism]] and [[Stalinism]] fundamentally differed from such forms of [[tyranny]], in that the [[single-party state]] was completely subjected to the [[political party|party]], either a representative of the [[nation]] (conceived by Nazism as a ''[[Volksgemeinschaft]]'' - a Nazi neologism for "National community" -, which could only be achieved by gaining control of all aspects of cultural and social life - ''[[Gleichschaltung]]'') or of the [[proletariat]]. To the contrary, according to Arendt's controversial thesis, Mussolini's fascism still respected the authority of the state on the party. Arendt also underlined the role of [[pan-Germanism]] and [[pan-Slavism]] in both Nazism and Stalinism, which she described as "continental [[imperialism]]s" whom connected themselves to the [[racism|racist discourse]] born during the [[New Imperialism]] period. |
||
Hannah Arendt's thesis on the totalitarian identity between Nazism and Stalinism has inspired a generation of thinkers, and has been also widely contested. |
|||
It has been argued that fascism shared more traits with Nazism, including a common ideology, which set these two regimes apart from [[communism|communist]] regimes such as the [[USSR]]. |
|||
==Cold War-era research== |
==Cold War-era research== |
||
Revision as of 14:39, 31 January 2007
 | Editing of this article by new or unregistered users is currently disabled until January 23, 2025 at 21:09 UTC. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this article and you wish to make a change, you can submit an edit request, discuss changes on the talk page, request unprotection, log in, or create an account. |
Totalitarianism is a term employed by political scientists, especially those in the field of comparative politics, to describe modern regimes in which the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior.
Totalitarian regimes maintain themselves in political power by means of single-party state, secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, personality cult, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics (political purges and persecution of specific groups of people).
Such regimes are generally held in disdain by Western writers such as Hannah Arendt and Karl Popper, with notable exceptions such as Noam Chomsky.
Usage of the term
The most influential scholars of totalitarianism, such as Karl Popper, Hannah Arendt, Carl Friedrich, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Juan Linz have each described totalitarianism in a slightly different way. Common to all definitions is the attempt to mobilize entire populations in support of the state and a political or religious ideology, and the intolerance of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, such as involvement with labour unions, non-sanctioned churches or opposition political parties.
Critics of the term contend that the concept lacks explanatory power and can be misapplied. Governments classified as "totalitarian" often lack characteristics associated with the term, they say. Governments which appear monolithic from the outside may actually incorporate several distinct groups, such as the army, political leaders, industrialists, which compete for power and influence [1]. These regimes may exhibit a degree pluralism through the involvement of several groups in the political process.[2]
While originally referring to an 'all-embracing, total state,' the label has been applied to a wide variety of regimes and orders of rule in a critical sense. Karl Popper, in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945) and The Poverty of Historicism (1961) developed an influential critique of totalitarianism: in both works, he contrasted the "open society" of liberal democracy with totalitarianism, and argued that the latter is grounded in the belief that history moves toward an immutable future, in accord with knowable laws. During the Cold War period, the term gained renewed currency, especially following the publication of Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951).
Hannah Arendt's thesis
Hannah Arendt argued that while Italian fascism constituted a classical case of dictatorship, Nazism and Stalinism fundamentally differed from such forms of tyranny, in that the single-party state was completely subjected to the party, either a representative of the nation (conceived by Nazism as a Volksgemeinschaft - a Nazi neologism for "National community" -, which could only be achieved by gaining control of all aspects of cultural and social life - Gleichschaltung) or of the proletariat. To the contrary, according to Arendt's controversial thesis, Mussolini's fascism still respected the authority of the state on the party. Arendt also underlined the role of pan-Germanism and pan-Slavism in both Nazism and Stalinism, which she described as "continental imperialisms" whom connected themselves to the racist discourse born during the New Imperialism period.
Hannah Arendt's thesis on the totalitarian identity between Nazism and Stalinism has inspired a generation of thinkers, and has been also widely contested.
It has been argued that fascism shared more traits with Nazism, including a common ideology, which set these two regimes apart from communist regimes such as the USSR.
Cold War-era research
The political scientists Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski were primarily responsible for expanding the usage of the term in university social science and professional research, reformulating it as a paradigm for the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin as well as fascist regimes. For Friedrich and Brzezinski, the defining elements were intended to be taken as a mutually supportive organic entity comprised of the following: an elaborating guiding ideology; a single mass party, typically led by a dictator; a system of terror; a monopoly of the means of communication and physical force; and central direction and control of the economy through state planning. Such regimes had initial origins in the chaos that followed in the wake of the World War I, at which point the sophistication of modern weapons and communications enabled totalitarian movements to consolidate power in Italy, Germany, and Russia.
Criticism and recent work with the concept
The concept of totalitarianism was at its outset controversial, and has been accused of being more of an ideological instrument than a descriptive tool. In the context of the Cold War, the identification between Stalinism and Nazism was obviously aimed against the Soviet Bloc, and has been therefore accused of being mainly used for anti-communism purposes. The first criticisms thus arose in the socialist movement. Political scientists later argued that the "totalitarianism" concept didn't cover the real functioning of the Soviet Union. Furthermore, aside from the question of when Stalinism ended, this concept didn't account for the dissolution of the USSR in the 1990s.
The edition of The Black Book of Communism (1997), under Stéphane Courtois' direction, highlighted again the controversy concerning Stalinism and Nazism alleged identification under the concept of totalitarianism. Besides, François Furet's earlier thesis about Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR being "totalitarian twins" was exposed to various criticisms. In The Nation, Daniel Singer, for instance, acknowledged the "totalitarian nature" of Stalin's Russia while finding "the thesis of "totalitarian twins" both wrong and unproductive.[3]. Other authors, among whom is historian Eric Hobsbawm, reacted to Furet's continued identification in the 1990s of both regimes as a sure sign of anti-communism. Indeed, the political context of the creation of this concept — the very beginning of the Cold War — would tend to accredit such a thesis. However, other authors have argued that despite this essential ideological difference and thus explicit goals shared by the rival ideologies (namely, Nazism and Communism, which is here identified with Stalinism despite the existence of other models), their functional working and the use of concentration camps in both Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR proved their essential similarity.
However, this technical similarity between both regimes itself has been contested. In the social sciences, the approach of Friedrich and Brzezinski came under criticism from scholars who argued that the Soviet system, both as a political and a social entity, was in fact better understood in terms of interest groups, competing elites, or even in class terms (using the concept of the nomenklatura as a vehicle for a new ruling class). These critics pointed to evidence of popular support for the regime and widespread dispersion of power, at least in the implementation of policy, among sectoral and regional authorities. For some followers of this 'pluralist' approach, this was evidence of the ability of the regime to adapt to include new demands. However, proponents of the totalitarian model claimed that the failure of the system to survive showed not only its inability to adapt but the mere formality of supposed popular participation. Its proponents do not agree on when the Soviet Union ceased to be describable as totalitarian.
The notion of "post-totalitarianism" was put forward by political scientists Juan Linz and Richard Löwenthal. For many commentators, such as Linz and Alfred Stepan, the Soviet Union entered a new phase after the abandonment of mass terror on Stalin's death. Discussion of "post-totalitarianism" featured prominently in debates about the reformability and durability of the Soviet system in comparative politics.
As the Soviet system disintegrated in the late 1980s and early 1990s, opponents of the concept claimed that the transformation of the Soviet Union under Mikhail Gorbachev, and later the total and sudden collapse of the Soviet Union, demonstrated that the totalitarian model had little explanatory value for researchers. Several decades earlier, for example, Bertram Wolfe in 1957 claimed that the Soviet Union faced no challenge or change possible from society at large. He called it a "solid and durable political system dominating a society that has been totally fragmented or atomized," one which will remain "barring explosion from within or battering down from without." Many classic theories of totalitarianism discounted the possibility of such change; however, later theorists not only acknowledged the possibility but in fact encouraged and welcomed it. Any suggestions of the indefinite stability of states labeled totalitarian among proponents of the term were largely discredited when the Soviet Union fell by the wayside.
Political usage
While the term fell into disuse during the 1970s among many Soviet specialists, other commentators found the typology not only useful for the purposes of classification but for guiding official policy. In her 1978 essay for Commentary, "Dictatorships and Double Standards" (later expanded upon), Jeane Kirkpatrick argued that a number of foreign policy implications can be drawn by distinguishing "totalitarian" regimes from "authoritarian" ones. According to Kirkpatrick, authoritarian regimes are primarily interested in their own survival, and as such have allowed for varying degrees of autonomy regarding elements of civil society, religious institutions, court, and the press. On the other hand, under totalitarianism, no individual or institution is autonomous from the state's all-encompassing ideology. Therefore, U.S. policy should distinguish between the two and even grant support, if temporary, to authoritarian governments in order to combat totalitarian movements and promote U.S. interests. Kirkpatrick's influence, particularly as foreign policy adviser and United Nations ambassador, was essential to the formation of the Reagan administration's foreign policy and her ideas came to be known as the "Kirkpatrick Doctrine."
Notes
- ^ See for example Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem, chapter IX on the Reich's deportations. Functionalists in particular have argued in favor of this thesis.
- ^ Peter Burnham "Totalitarianism" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Ed. Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan. Oxford University Press, 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.
- ^ Daniel Singer, Exploiting a Tragedy, or Le Rouge en Noir, The Nation, posted November 25, 1999 (December 13, 1999 issue). The particular quotation is on page 3 of the online article. Accessed 27 September 2006.
References
- Giorgio Agamben, State of Exception - Homo Sacer (2003)
- Franz Borkenau The Totalitarian Enemy, (London, Faber and Faber) 1940.
- Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1958, new ed. 1966)
- John A. Armstrong, The Politics of Totalitarianism (New York: Random House, 1961)
- C. J. Friedrich and Z. K. Brzezinski, Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (2d edn 1967)
- Guy Hermet, Totalitarismes (París, Éditions Economica, 1984)
- Jeane Kirkpatrick, Dictatorships and Double Standards: Rationalism and reason in politics (1982)
- Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan, Problems of Democratic Consolidation (1996)
- Bruno Rizzi, La Bureaucratisation du monde (The Bureaucratisation of the World) (1939)
- Giovanni Sartori, The Theory of Democracy Revisited (Chatham, N.J: Chatham House, 1987)
- Leonard Schapiro, Totalitarianism (London: The Pall Mall Press, 1972)
- Carl Schmitt, Die Diktatur (1928)
- J. L. Talmon, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy (1952)
- Žižek, Slavoj, Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism? (London: Verso, 2001)