Talk:Totalitarianism

Archives
2002–July 2005 July 2005–February 2007

State & totalitarian movement

I've included personality cult & single-party system as they seemed to be considered as characteristics of totalitarian regimes by most, if not all, scholars on the subject. But as the introduction states that "totalitarianism is a regime in which the state controls everything," I wonder on the exclusion of thesis such as Ian Kershaw (in "Hitler, a Profile of Power") or Michel Foucault (see bibliography) who consider totalitarianism (in the case of Kershaw, Nazism, but Foucault includes Stalinism & Fascism) as decompositions of the state, to which the party substitute itself. Foucault spoke of a "party governmentality", while Kershaw insisted on the substitution of a "charismatic domination" (inspired by Weber) to the "bureaucratic domination", which passed through the means of the prevailence of the party (directly linked to the Führer through the Führerprinzip) over the state. Input? Tazmaniacs 15:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Leszek Kołakowski

"Kołakowski's experience of Nazi and Communist rule in Poland alerted him to the question of totalitarianism" claimed an older version of the article.Xx236 09:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Partisan editing

I see repeated attempts to hide information about totalitarian regimes under a smokescreen of "scholarly talk" about the meaning of term. There are passages on how it was coined, who applied the term to what, and so on.

I get confused about 1/3 into the article. Usually when we describe a phenomenon we say what it is and then give examples of it. This article has long seemed to be an protest against any use of the term at all. I wonder if there is a deconstructionist trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox here.

Anyway, I think the thing to do is to condense the material on "the term itself" or at any rate to start adding many examples of totalitarian regimes.

Once we have enough of those example, if anyone wants to include scholarly objections to the use of the term "totalitarian" to describe those regimes, they can. But don't forget to include defense of its use as well.

Essentially, there is a category of regime (dubbed "totalitarian" by some scholars and historians and political scientists) which tries to control everything; see totalism if it's not a redirect to this article. They say that Fascism and Communism have this "total control" aspect in common. One even called the two kinds of goverment "totalitarian twins".

This view, that Fascism and Communism are twin instances of one thing, is more popular in the Christianized West, perhaps. It would not be NPOV to exalt this view over any dissenting views, any more than it would be neutral to exalt the viewpoint that "totalitarianism" is a poorly defined or useless term.

Also, it's interesting to point out that adherents of Communism and Nazism opposed each other and were on opposite sides in World War II. Whether the "left" side (Communism) and the "far right" (Hitler, Mussolini) are diametrically opposed or simply mirrors with a lot in common, should be a major theme of this article.

Archivists, please do not conceal this suggestion or discussions about it, as that might falsely give the impression that this article is a "done deal" or stable. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There is legitimate scholarly debate about whether fascism and national socialism are right-wing phenomena. In point of fact, the two were in direct competition with Communism for adherents. Totalitarianism could therefore be considered a left-wing ideology rather than right-wing. They may be on the right edge of the left because of their militarism and nationalism, but they are still leftists. "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg makes some very interesting points that might add balance to the article. --unregistered guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.88.134 (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Except the private sector in Germany was alive and well, it was never nationalized the way it was in communist countries. On economics, all you can say about the Nazis is they were centrist. On everything else, they were far right - nationalism, militarism, and the support they received was overwhelmingly from the *conservative* institutions of Germany (the military, the business sector, the middle-class). Jonah Goldberg's book was just political name-calling. A liberal could write a book called "conservative communism," it wouldn't be any less absurd. 217.52.14.101 (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

They were never supported by conservatives. Nazis got their votes from working class voters who did not want to vote communists (who were rising), but neither wanted to vote conservative-liberals (accused of Great Depression).

Nazis and Communists were not ideological enemies. They were allies with the Nazi-Soviet Pact which was broken when they became enemies over power and territory. In my understanding Authoritarian would be far right with a monarchy rule while Totalitarian would be far left with a socialist/state dictatorial rule. Basically, dictators to the left and monarchs to the right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Examples

In Italian fascist state, even though it nationalized the industry and regulated markets, people were still somewhat free to move out, buy many things, and marry whoever they wanted. Not the clearest case of "totalitarianism".

In dozens of socialist countries, on the other hand, one could not even visit an another town without a permit from communist officials. Getting passports for foreign travel required special position and hundreds of thousands soldiers served solely to prevent the escape of population. Local bureaucrats selected people's jobs, food servings, even spouses. In some states as Cambodia, children were systematically separated from their parents for anti-capitalist indoctrination.

Ridiculous how some editors try to censor experiences of some half the world population between 1918 and 1991.Valois bourbon (talk) 11:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Fascist countries were not consumer economies, but remained with subsistence agricultural economies and large landowners. Most people were too poor to "buy many things" in Spain, Portugal, and Italy, and many starved. You definitely needed permission to travel under Fascism, even to a neighboring town in Italy. You had to present your papers to the local police department on arrival, and this situation persisted into the nineteen fifties. As for freedom to marry. I have not heard that in Soviet Russia people's spouses were selected for them, though this may have been the case in Cambodia. 24.105.152.153 (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)feb 2009

Ba'athism

Unless someone calls Ba'athism, as practiced until 2003 under Saddam Hussein and in Syria to this day "fascist", why should it not be included as a totalitarian ideology as a third type?

Saddam Hussein and Hafez Assad ruled in much the same manner as the two other (here recognized) totalitarian general forms, Communist and fascist. Saddam Hussein seems to have adopted most of his techniques from Stalin, being careful to avoid Stalin's atheism in deference to Islamic sensibilities.

Is totalitarianism "extreme dictatorship" or does it apply only those that fit certain cultural modes? It's clear that Saddam Hussein's regime was far more lethal than were those of Kurt Schuschnigg in Austria or Wojciech Jaruzelski in Poland. The former is usually considered "fascist"; the latter "communist". The regimes of Saddam Hussein and Hafez Assad have common characteristics with nazism and Marxism-Leninism:

• 1. Clear-cut ideology and no pluralism

• 2. No security of life and property

• 3. Personality cult in practice

• 4. Pretension to being "true democracy" as opposed to "false" democracy (as in "plutocratic" or "bourgeois" societies)

• 5. Extensive government control of the economy

• 6. Fraudulent elections and plebiscites, if any

• 7. Brutal repression of any real or imagined opposition

• 8. Simultaneous claim to modernity and an idealized but distant past

• 9. Attempt to re-shape the national culture

• 10. Militarism and expansionism

This describes Pol Pot's Cambodia, Hitler's Germany, North Korea, Stalin's Soviet Union, Vichy France, Ustaše Croatia, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba, Hungary under the Arrow Cross movement, Mussolini's Italy, and Japan during World War II very well. Perhaps Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, and Iran under Reza Pahlavi II. It badly describes traditional monarchies (Saudi Arabia) and most military dictatorships (including Augusto Pinochet's Chile or Greece under George Papadoupoulos) because those allow extensive economic freedom and endorse tradition as a contrast to modernity. It also badly describes the lunatic despotism of Idi Amin. Apartheid in South Africa or Rhodesia? Democracy for a privileged ethnic group, if oppression and repression for everyone else. Zionism? Whatever offense Israel may be to its neighbors, Israeli citizens are relatively safe from their government, have free elections and much economic freedom, face no personality cult, and usually try to compare their government to liberal democracies. It's best that we not allow the word "totalitarianism" to be spread to the bogeyman of the day.

If totalitarianism is as much a political culture as it is the absence of freedom, then what separates Ba'athism from fascism and Communism? Because it isn't overtly anti-religious and doesn't put up pictures of Marx and Lenin everywhere, it's certainly not Communist. Because it isn't overtly racist, it's not Nazi or even fascist. It is (or was) clearly expansionist, as demonstrated in the Syrian incursion into Lebanon and Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.--Paul from Michigan (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Ba'ath Party under Saddam was quite overtly racist, especially towards Kurds, Persians and Jews. There was also oppression of religious minorities that were not in line with the regime (the Shi'a). And parallels can certainly be drawn between Hitler's holocaust and chemical attacks on the Kurds.

They had areas of agreement with Marxism also - centralized command economy, for one, and secular government, for another. (Unlike in the communist world religion per se was never suppressed, but any religious groups that he felt were escaping his control were cracked down on instantly. This made religions unable to function as independent moral guides, making their existence essentially pointless).

As for whether or not it's totalitarianism, that simply depends on which application of Ba'athism you're talking about. Saddam's Iraq was certainly totalitarian, but Assad's Syria could probably be considered simply authoritarian. (In the same way, Hitler and Mussolini are generally considered totalitarian; Franco and Salazar, despite their almost identical ideology, are not). R2Parmly (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I just want to note that this section is FAR better than the article itself. Thank you for clearly defining your terms, using more than two obvious examples, and contrasting with similar non-examples. The main article does none of these things. 173.228.85.18 (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Communism and Fascism section (merge)

I have added a substantial amount of text merged under this header from the Totalitarian twins article regarding the combination of communism and fascism. Bry9000 (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that was right. "Totalitarian rule" is a scientific term. "Totalitarian twins" is a propaganda slogan. Let's keep such things separately, although they are related.Biophys (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No one responded here for a long time. So, I split them back.Biophys (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

See Also: Scientology?

Can someone tell me why Scientology is a "see also" in the Totalitarianism article? Or more precisely why I shouldn't remove that link? ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 18:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I added Apartheid because it has a clear-cut ideology and repressive means as well as a tendency for expansion. Its victims can look upon it as a crushing order. It might be freedom for some but tyranny for others, just like any totalitarian ideology. Its demise in South Africa was often seen in much the same light as the demise of Communism in the former Soviet bloc.

I have removed the link on the grounds that there is not now and there likely will never be any "Scientologist" government. I can't think of even a Scientology-directed or dominated political party anywhere. Scientology offends the sensibilities of many for its obscurantism, its extreme demands for personal compliance, its hard methods of attacking detractors... but such can be said of any cult. If Scientology is totalitarian, then so is every religious, philosophical, and political cult; such an inclusion reduces the meaning of the category.

Whether I like or dislike Scientology has nothing to do with it. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "Apartheid" should be considered totalitarianism either. It involves oppression of one minority by another, but not of the people as a whole by the government. Should the southern United States pre- Civil War be considered totalitarian? No, because most of the population (whites) were citizens with full voting rights. Totalitarianism implies state control of everything. That's not the case when so much of the population is free to do as it pleases, and when the slaves are controlled not by the government but by private citizens.

Apartheid, sick and wrong? Certainly. A form of oppression? Undeniably. But totalitarian, it just doesn't fit the definition. R2Parmly (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have to concur with the above comments. Those who are suggesting placing Rhodesia and apartheid-era South Africa under the rubric totalitarianism are mistaking using the term for any form of extremely oppressive government. I would agree that yes, there were grave human-rights abuses in South Africa and Rhodesia, and yes, that for the black population (who were the majority of the population), white supremacist rule was indeed oppressive. However, for those fortunate enough to be white during those regimes, the rule of law generally did apply. Totalitarianism is usually understood as referring to regimes who the state holds total power over its subjects with no restraint or limits, and since there were usually limits on the state’s power when it came to white citizens, that disqualifies South Africa and Rhodesia. Both of those regimes were nasty, unpleasant and racist, but I don’t think they can be considered totalitarian. --A.S. Brown (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

POV problems

I found some minor POV problems that I corrected. I also tried to improve the lead, and removed some redundancy. I think its better now but I'm open for discussion, of course. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Biosphy, I'm not sure if you intentionally undid my NPOV improvements, since you didn't state anything in the edit summary, and seems you were reverting an IP user. I've restored my changes, of course, but if it was intentional, please explain, and lets discuss our desired changes. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You have made too many questionable changes during one edit. So, it is difficult to discuss them all at once. It would be more productive if you could make one change at a time, and then discuss. Let's start from a few problems.

1. You said: "Totalitarianism is a concept used to describe modern political systems". No, it is mostly used to describe historical political regimes.
2. You wrote: "According to Richard Pipes, he [Hitler] conceded", and so on. No, this text is not "according to Pipes". It is according to Hitler.
3. You wrote: "Critics say that the concept is flawed, and that the term lacks explanatory power. ", and so on. This is fine to tell in a "Criticism" section, with all arguments and counter-arguments provided. Telling this in Introduction in such way is POV.
4. "Proponents of the theory have each described totalitarianism in a slightly different way. Common to all definitions is ...". The previous version of this paragraph was better and more concise.

Please make one change at a time and discuss. This article should be improved by adding more scholarly information on the subject, not by "NPOVing" it the way you are doing.Biophys (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, let me address these points.

1. This is not a big issue for me, and I may be wrong about it. The sources I've read have always attributed it to modern states. Indeed, the article states, "according to most scholars the first totalitarian regimes were formed in the 20th century." Do you have an application to non-modern State? My "understanding was not just that this was a modern concept, but that that because states before the 20th century lacked the technological means for controlling large numbers of people in the way specified by the concept, its rare at best. That is with television, radio, and other mass media, it makes it relatively easy for "totalitarian regimes" to make their presence felt through campaigns of propaganda or the creation of the personality cult that sticks, hence the concept of totalitarian democracy (which should have a section in this article, btw). I have seen some references to the Qin Dynasty as a possible rare example of a pre-modern totalitarian state, and also periods of the Imperial Catholic reins of power being described this way, so you might be right, but I'd have to double check.

I agree with that. Sorry, I did not understand what you mean.Biophys (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I wrote: "According to Richard Pipes, he [Hitler] conceded", and so on. And you say, No, this text is not "according to Pipes". It is according to Hitler." Ah but look at the source. It's the source that is being used here, so it is according to the source. The source is NOT Mein Kampf, right? Therefore we are not quoting Hitler, and hence the statement we reference is not according to Hitler but according to Pipes, who asserts this statement of fact. Also, the wording was POV as it states it as an established fact, and avoids any attribution. This violate NPOV, and is misleading.

I modified this paragraph to make a more clear attribution to Pipes.Biophys (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I disagree that stating the concept is disputed is POV for the intro. In fact its POV to state the concept as if it were a valid, accepted concept when it was not. Sure, in the body of the article, we can get into the issues, but the intro should reflect the major points in the body. The fact that this is a disputed concept that has been largely discredited since the collapse of the Soviet Union (not supposed to happen under the theory), is a major issue. Perhaps we can compromise on cutting it down for the intro?

O'K, let's expand and source main "Criticism" section first. Then we can briefly summarize the criticisms in Introduction.Biophys (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

1. You say the previous version was better, but I'm not sure how or why you say it was better. More elaboration on this point is needed in order for me to address it.

It was shorter but tells exactly the same.Biophys (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Some other glaring POV issues that you restored, for example is in restoring the term "even" when referencing class: "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 as a social entity, was in fact better understood in terms of interest groups, competing elites, or even 'in class terms..." By inserting "even" class POV is inserted as it implies that class analysis is somehow more far-fetched, minimizing a rather major school of critical theory. There were other changes Ive made that I felt were quite needed improvements, too, but I'll leave it here for now. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This article simply does not explain what the totalitarian rule is. That is major problem. I will try to fix this as time allows.Biophys (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with some of my points, above, and glad that you saw it was just misunderstanding. Some of your additions are good but others I see as still problematic. I don't see that you really correct the POV/attribution problems I mentioned above, either. For example the text still says, "Hitler admitted that he had "learned a great deal from Marxism". He conceded that..." Same problem. Also, the "even class" phrase is still not corrected. Adding in "even" is POV, as I explained above.

I also think some of your changes to the criticism section made things worse. For example you changes this: "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 its subsequent sudden collapse, demonstrated that the totalitarian model had little explanatory value..." Into this:

"As the Soviet system disintegrated in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it became clear that totalitarian systems are intrinsically unstable. That was not obvious earlier for some researchers."

Besides the POV problems with the wording, you completely changed that critics point - removing it - and substituted instead POV explanation in defense of the theory (stating a change of the theory?) instead of the point the critics are making, which is supposed to be the subject of the section. If that is counter point that is made it needs to be sourced, and the original point needs to be re-instated (also with some good sources). The original point that critics made is that the theory of totalitarianism stipulated that such states would not fall on their own but required a violent toppling, and hence the theory was proved wrong in that respect. Indeed, there are many points of critics, which call for an expansion of this section, not a trimming, as you have done. Much of it does center around it lacking any pratical use by historians, but is rather an idealized type, "ideal type" which does not reflect actual reality of states, stemming from the flawed concept of the "organic state."

Lastly, I'm wondering if we should even have a section on Communism and Fascism here. There are other articles which talk about this, and this article should focus more on the issues directly related to the theory of Totalitarianism. But if it is here it should be more tied into a discussion of the totalitarianism. It should be made clear that the theory was posited by anti-communist authors advancing a revisionist view against the dominant view that fascism grew out of as a reaction against socialist revolutionary movements, by saying that they were essential the same in both theory and practice; the Austrian School economist Friedrich Hayek, comes to mind as an exmple, where he argues they both have common philosophical roots both springing from the opposition to the liberalism of the 19th century. The traditional view is that Marxism/Communism comes out of liberalism (see C.Wright Mills for example of this view).

But if we are to present this area of discussion, the critical views should be mentioned, as well. Specifically they point out that the this view makes incomprehensible the radical opposition between the ideologies which informs them, esp. considering that ideology is indeed constitutive of each of the regimes whose affinity it is claimed are essentially the same. Critics point out aht Communism claims to hold universal values; it only denounces democracy because it appears to be formal, and hollow, and in order to establish a real democracy, that is to say, one which gives full meaning to the concept of equality and to the participation of the people in public matters. Its main aim is to assure the common good within the society in which it is established; and its final aim is to safeguard the common good of humanity. Violence presents itself as counter-violence imposed by the domination of the bourgeoisie. Fascism, on the other hand, glorifies nationalistic passions and claims to realize the particular destiny of a particular people in a national or ethnic sense. In its extreme version, that of Nazism, it attributes absolute superiority to the people of Germany and associates this image with that of the pure race, summoned either to subjugate inferior races or to eliminate them; anti-Semitism lies at the heart of the ideology. Violence is then considered to be an expression of life to be glorified, even. There are of course other aspects but criticism section does need to be expanded if we are to keep the section on Communism and Fascism, which I think may not fit best in this article.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I can not reply to everything right now, but the entire "Criticism" section is simply unsourced. If you can find a scholarly book with Criticism of the concept, you are very welcome to include anything from there, but with clear attribution please. Everything in this section look pretty much as OR.Biophys (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

With regard to your other comments... I agree that Totalitarian twins should be split back (see my comment about merging above). I also agree with everything you said about fascism. Sure, even the strongest proponents of "totaliarianism" do not claim that communism=fascism. As about "Soviet democracy", yes, they claim a lot, but deliver something completely opposite, and disinformation is a policy of the state. Remember, I lived there.Biophys (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Disinformation is the policy of every state, but I agree with you about practice of "soviet democracy," being the opposite of what they claimed (State capitalism). Certainly true. I was rather referring to the conceptions of Marxism/Communism re democracy. Yes, I'll have to dig up some good sources for the criticism section. Thanks for your quick response.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Going back a couple of posts;

"As the Soviet system disintegrated in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it became clear that totalitarian systems are intrinsically unstable. That was not obvious earlier for some researchers".

Is this really true? Okay, the Eastern Bloc fell apart, Cuba and North Korea will follow soon enough. But what about China? That is still very much a totalitarian regime, and it shows no signs of following in its comrades' path. Quite the contrary, the market reforms that they put in place have made it more stable and more powerful, and all evidence is that this trend will continue for the forseeable future.

Similarly, there is no evidence that Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were "inherently unstable". They were destroyed by foreign conquest, not because of any internal problems, and we have no idea what would have happened if the systems had been allowed to continue; for all we know, they might be alive and well today.

I'm not suggesting for a second that totalitarianism is a good thing, but there's nothing to prove that it's inherently unstable, as the vitality of Nazi Germany and the present successes of the PRC demonstrate. *Communism* is intrinsically unstable, yes - but not all totalitarianisms are communist. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Totalitarianism is strictly speaking refers to a typology of rule, not an ideology. Unfortunately, a lot of people for various reasons get mixed up, and treat what is a typology of rule as an ideology (which does much to muddle the issues). Since totalitarianism is a typology, it can be either right or left depending on the circumstances, so the above comments about the alleged positive nature of Communism vs. the negative nature of fascism as way of disqualifying the concept are with all due respect, mistaken.--A.S. Brown (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Would islamist systems count?

Would islamist systems, particularly Khomeini's Iran and Qaddafi's Libya, be considered totalitarian? Personality cults, ideological inculcation and control of every aspect of society were just as much facts of life under those two as under Hitler and Stalin. People are hesitant to call them totalitarian because the regimes draw their beliefs (or claim to) from religion rather than political ideology, but whatever name it goes by, it's the same bottom line; the State decides what orthodoxy is, and Thou Shalt Not violate it. (Imams have been arrested in Iran for preaching views contradicting those of the regime, and both liberal and fundamentalist Muslims have been persecuted by Qaddafi's Libya). 213.181.226.21 (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Iran may not be exactly a fascist state; It looks like a democracy, actually, in some aspects!!!!! I am not sure what you mean as "imams have been arrested in Iran": just the opposite is true. Check out "Persian Mirrors: The Elusive Face" of Iran by Elaine Sciolino.

I think it could be said that Islam itself is totalitarian, if you go strictly by the Koran. It stipulates a specific political system, a specific social order, gender roles, a specific monetary/financial system, the relation between Mosque and State, which the Bible nor the Torah do. Plus, Communism developed in a manner similar to Islam. You had Marx and Engels, who wrote the Manifesto, just as Allah wrote the Koran, or whose words were represented by it. You have the prophet of Islam, who brought it to the masses by engendering revolution by delivering the word of Allah into his movement, Mohammed. You have Lenin who brought the word of Marx and Engels, tho of his own style, to the masses and engendered revolution by interpreting Marxism to the Russians. They both made their acts into political systems. Then you have Stalinism, which was the mainstream Communism, and Trotskyism, a rebel movement who broke off from Stalinism as the "true Communism." You have Sunnism, the mainstream, and the have the Shiites, who broke off from the Sunnis, claiming to be the true Islam. Stalin:Trotsky=Abu Bakr:AliTallicfan20 (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Right-wing Slanted P.O.V.

This article needs a real good clean-up:

Under the current definition, every state and no state could be considered totalitarian. That is, no state would ever strive to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible. Feasibility of regulation is a very poor criterion for selection by the state. All systems are optimized with some goal in mind like economic advantage or the public good. Even such criteria as going for "low-hanging fruit" leaves out a more fundamental filter such as health and human welfare or military necessity.

It is valid to say that a totalitarian state recognizes no limits to its authority. That is, a gang of thugs just does what it wants to do without any moral or ethical restraint. However, all governments are authoritarian to some degree. Perhaps it is more reasonable to suggest that totalitarianism represents the far end of the authoritarian spectrum - while liberalism represents the other.

It is also unreasonable to state that only totalitarian governments seek to control public opinion. See for example Propaganda for Japanese-American Internment. Every government does this to some extent.

It seems to me, however, that more often than not and including in this article, the term totalitarianism is used to scare people into shunning a particular ideology, usually having to do with the distribution of wealth or political power sharing. As soon as someone suggests an idea that is in opposition to our so called "capitalist democracy," it gets labeled totalitarian. That is, the western, authoritarian, patrician oligarchy attacks those whose ideas differ. Moreover, they have at times used whatever means they deemed necessary in the name of democracy. For an example, see McCarthyism or the Japanese-American internment. This article could clearly benefit by a section exposing the use of the fear of totalitarianism as a tactic to actually induce totalitarian control. For example, it would be reasonable to label stalinism totalitarianism, but what about modern, swedish socialism? Donald Kagan of Yale University in his Introduction to Ancient Greek History lecture series, on Yale Open Courses, labels any "Utopian Socialism" as totalitarianism. This kind of byzantine word-smithing is so deeply ingrained in patrician controlled academia that it is rarely questioned.

206.109.195.126 (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd argue that the other far end of the authoritarian spectrum is anarchy.

But then it could also be argued that anarchy leads to "totalitarianism"... I think the term itself is useless and unscientific.

Centril (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Pipes

Much of the sourcing Pipes uses for the views of Hitler on the parallels between Fascism and Communism cannot be reliably traced back to anything stated by Hitler at any stage. Pipes is generally a lot less neutral in his judgement than can be expected from someone in his position, and most of the direct quotes here are actually Pipes citing Rauschning, who has been largely discredited as a fantasist.

This section of the article is essentially Wikipedia disseminating anti-marxist propaganda, and is, in any case, simply not safe to use as a reliable source for the views of Hitler. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That is why we should use good secondary sources like this book by Pipes (see WP:Verifiability). We have no obligation to dig out hundreds of primary sources cited in a secondary source. This is work for professional historians like Pipes. Any way, this was cited from the book by Pipes, and the attribution has been provided. Nothing else is needed.Biophys (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

But the authenticity of so-called primary source - i.e. Rauschning - has been repeatedly called into question. Pipes quoting a source verbatim does not make that source de facto reliable. While I have my doubts about Pipes, these do not even come into the question here. It is sophistry to argue that Pipes quoting this makes it worthy of inclusion as a 'Hitler quote'. The article could mention that Pipes quotes Rauschning's account of his alleged meetings with Hitler, but the article cannot baldly state that 'Hitler said X', as it does now. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources telling that this particular citation is wrong, that might be relevant. I will check this later.Biophys (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Haenel, though often feted by revisionists, nevertheless makes some compelling points. Ian Kershaw is a more credible name, and his biographies of Hitler (vols 1 and 2) view Rauschning as almost so discredited as to be unworthy of notice. My attention has been drawn to HW Koch's Aspects of the Third Reich, (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1985) pg 55' by the WP article on Rauschning. You will have to appreciate that I do not currently have the books mentioned in front of me at the moment, so more detailed citations will have to wait. I do not however believe many serious historians of the period have regarded Rauschning as reliable for some 10-15 years. I will freely confess to frequently having problems with Pipes's syntheses, but as I have said, this is not even relevant here. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, Laqueur, 'Fin de siecle and other essays on America & Europe', p101, specifically criticises Pipes's reliance on Rauschning and dismisses Rauschning's books as 'not a primary source'. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this comes from "Hitler speaks" by Hermann Rauschning. If "Hitler speaks" was disputed, this should be described in article Hermann Rauschning. If the book was a subject of a controversy, this should be also noted here.Biophys (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The disputed nature of Rauschning's work is certainly (albeit clumsily) described in the article on him. This article will need rewording to reflect the controversy, as Rauschning's claims of what Hitler apparently 'told him' are set out here as being direct Hitler quotes - "Hitler...asserted that" is far more definite than the sourcing is. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The disputed nature of Rauschning's work is not sourced even in main article Hermann Rauschning, and it is much less relevant here. Let's provide some sourcing first in main article.Biophys (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

The article says that "The governmental techniques of a totalitarian regime are necessarily authoritarian" but I cannot see how totalitarianism requires authoritarianism, although I can see that authoritarianism makes totalitarianism easier. I believe it is possible, albeit a bit difficult, to have a totalitarian republic or a totalitarian mob rule without any identifiable single source of power (eg a leader). Any references supporting the view that totalitarianism implies authoritarianism? NerdyNSK (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what cited source tells (citation provided).It tells that the government of every totatlitarian regime is necessarily authoriatarian.Biophys (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not have this book in order to make sure it says this thing, but the whole concept (that totalitarianism is impossible without authoritarianism) does not sound right to me. Citing just one reference is not all the truth. I found another reference, actually documented in Wikipedia in the article totalitarian democracy, which claims that it is possible to have totalitarianism with elections, which I think is very close to what I meant above. So, in order to keep the article NPOV, I added a link to the Wikipedia article on totalitarian democracy to show that various academics have different views on whether totalitarianism requires authoritarianism. NerdyNSK (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is possible "to have totalitarianism with elections" as you said! There were elections in the Soviet Union. However all candidates were actually preselected by the CPSU, and all preselected candidates have been elected. I also strongly agree that "citing just one reference is not all the truth" as you said. But then please cite at least one good reference that tells something different, and cite it as in-line citation, with pages and preferably with a quote. Since you are talking about totalitarian democracy, please do it first in totalitarian democracy that is totally unsourced at the moment. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that totalitarian democracy is completely irrelevant here. The concept of totalitarian democracy belongs to criticism of democracy. However totalitarian regimes are not democracies - according to absolutely all sources. Some sources criticize the concept of totalitarianism as not very useful, but all agree that "totalitarian" means something opposite to "democracy" - according to the concept.Biophys (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Communism in its pure anarcho form is totalitarianism since the individual is totally subjected to the collective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.100.86 (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Original research

Please cite any scholarly secondary sources that tell "the political system in US represents totalitarianism" (as in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union). I did not see anything like that in your version.Biophys (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because there are none, at least not from anything we'd normally consider a reliable source. Article certainly should not say that. - Jmabel | Talk 17:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, and similarly in my view, someone added "and present" to Mao-era China." I personally think that's ridiculous. No question that present-day China is a bit of a police state, but no more so than (say) Singapore or any other of a number of countries we wouldn't normally call totalitarian. Uncited, probably uncitable; certainly far too controversial to be used as an example in the lead. This should be changed. To equate present-day China with Nazi Germany, Maoist China, or the Soviet Union under Stalin is an insult to those who suffered under the latter regimes. Are there human rights abuses in present-day China? You bet. But pick up a random issue of Index on Censorhip and you can find a catalogue of human rights abuses in 40 other countries. This doesn't mean that most of the world is currently under totalitarian regimes. It trivializes the meaning of "totalitarianism" to say so. - Jmabel | Talk

I'd add that, in this respect, the inclusion of Cuba is pushing it pretty hard, too. Can someone provide a mainstream source calling present-day Cuba "totalitarian"? - Jmabel | Talk 17:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

For that matter, can someone name even one major non-English-language Wikipedia where there is consensus to give these as examples? I think these inclusions represent a blinkered view of the world. - Jmabel | Talk 17:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree about US - this is blatant OR. I think "Mao-era China" is fine. About Fidel's Cuba - let's have some time to find a reference. If nothing found, it should be removed.Biophys (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, none of sources I know about tell anything about "Stalinism". They tell only about communist states as examples of totalitarianism. This is also OR.Biophys (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A source

Historian Yuri Afanasiev argued that contemporary Russia is still a totalitarian country and traces the connection between the total economic dependence of people on the State and "total corruption" Interview with Yuri Afanasiev (Russian) at Echo of Moscow. See also [1] and [2]. Biophys (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Examples of totalitarian states

The article contained the phrase

"states such as the Soviet Union (Russia, East Germany, Romania, etc.)"

I removed Russia, East Germany, and Romania for the following reasons:

- the parentheses made it look like Russia, East Germany, and Romania are/were part of the Soviet Union, which is incorrect.

- all three terms describe geographical regions, not political entities that exist or existed at one point in time. It could be argued that the former GDR and Ceauşescu's Romania were totalitarian regimes, but currently East Germany and Romania are not. So, just listing "Russia, East Germany, Romania" is not precise enough.

Tadzio (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think any list of examples is bound to be controversial. Such a list should be included somewhere in the article, certainly, but not in the lead. Totalitarianism is primarily a concept in political science, similar to liberal democracy for example. Notice that there is no list of countries in the lead for the liberal democracy article. -- Amerul (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It is OK to keep specific countries as long as they have been described by at least several serious scholars as "totalitarian". Soviet Union and Nazi Germany fit this criterion. As about other countries - I am not so sure.Biophys (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Then German Democratic Republic, the proper name.Valois bourbon (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Would it not be fairer to balance the list out if one had to be included? For example- there are as many, if not more, capitalistic countries that have been totalitarian, yet that form is completely unrepresented. Why not add in Chile under Pinochet? Or the many Latin American banana republics? As it stands, by listing only Communist or Fascist it's implying that totalitarianism is a phenomenon specific to those forms. Which it plainly isn't. 78.150.246.215 (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If you think that the Pinochet regime in Chile was totalitarian then you have not understood the concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.96.77 (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. It was not totalitarian but merely a dictatorship.Biophys (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Difference between authoritarian and totalitarian states

The second paragraph does not belong under the section heading. Also, it would be helpful if it could be expanded to explain why social structures in Italy and German returned faster than in Russia. Is it because communism laster for a longer period, because Russia's pre-1917 social structures were inadequate in 1990, or because communism's destruction of social structure was more complete? The Four Deuces (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned up this section a little, but it seems somewhat questionable to me... The whole thing appears to be a quote, but the quotation marks before the cleanup were ambiguous, making it unclear how much of it is really a quote. Someone with the source (Pipes (1993)) should check. It also might make sense to rewrite the section, incorporating some quotations of Loewenstein (who seems to have had a pretty good idea of what he was talking about) but making most of the section original text. If I knew more about the topic, I would do it myself. Michael Sappir • (Talk) 01:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

'In Popular Culture' section too short?

There are plenty of examples out there, such as the film The Island, for one.

Image copyright problem with File:Pol Pot2.jpg

The image File:Pol Pot2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Telescreen.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Image in the lead being considered for deletion

The present image in the lead section is being considered for deletion. See the discussion the discussion here.—pivovarov (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

---

An editor has nominated the above file for discussion of its purpose and/or potential deletion. You are welcome to participate in the discussion and help reach a consensus. X-romix (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if the image is kept, it is propaganda not worthy of an NPOV encyclopedia: It doesn't illustrate an actual event, I don't base itself on verifiable facts, it is used - as per the image description - to illustrate the formulation made in an opinion book by a partisan author. ANd yeah, Jimbo called it a "bad idea". Perhaps the image has value as an example of a photomontage, but it has no place in this article, in particular with such prominence. Perhpas individual Images of Stalin and Hitler can be used, but this montage is an insult to encyclopedic quality.--Cerejota (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The article "Totalitarianism" by an Australian political scientist Prof. Leslie Templeman Holmes in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences says:

Totalitarianism was a major concept of the twentieth century. Yet both its meaning and its application were contested. While most political scientists believed that the concept summarised well the key features of both Fascism (inc. Nazism) and Communism, historians such as Alan Bullock argued that the difference between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union (particularly under Stalin) were such that it was misleading to use a single term to describe both. While there unquestionably were important distinctions between Fascism and Communism, particularly in terms of the role played by ideology, the predominant view nowadays is that the term is a useful short-hand way of describing a range of systems that, on balance, had more commonalities than differences.

Thus, the encyclopedic view is that totalitarianism is a partisan concept on its own, the image is an objective and accurate illustration of this concept, it respects NPOV per WP:WEIGHT, and it is a free replacement for an actual book cover (not to mention lots of other verifiable examples of similar artwork). You can blame the whole notion of totalitarianism for being propaganda, but the image just summarizes what this notion really is about.—pivovarov (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand this point, and definitely illustrations such as the one with the DPRK guards, or perhaps of Stalin and/or Hitler in situations that serve to illustrate this concept are warranted. However, the photomontage goes beyond mere illustration, and into advocacy.

For example, if it were the actual cover of a book, or some illustration from a well-known illustrator or some such other type of work, I would have no objection: it would clearly be serving an illustrative purpose of the facts of this partisan position. But that is not what is happening here: this is a completely derivative work, ideologically motivated. The fact that we even have to explicitly say that it is a photomontage illustrates this point: otherwise it would be totally misleading. And even with this caveat, it is misleading. I am sure we can find better illustrations of this concept, one that is not so blatantly partisan, and doesn't mislead our readers. --Cerejota (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Book covers, etc., are copyrighted and thus, their use in the lead of the present article would be a violation of WP:NFC and subject to WP:SPEEDY deletion — because they can be replaced with a free image and it has actually been done. For many reasons I wish we could use an illustration associated with well-known author, but it is just not an option. Could you please provide specific suggestions how to illustrate a central idea of the concept that fascism and Stalin's communism had more commonalities than differences, without the use of copyrighted material? Otherwise we just have to admit that there are no reasonable alternatives and instead of removing the image we should probably work on its caption.—pivovarov (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Eugene Pivovarov. This image illustrates main idea of the article.Biophys (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  Political idea can't be illustrated, illustration of an idea is a propaganda (e.g. soviet posters, monuments, parades). Encyclopedia is another genre, it's not a tribune of propaganda. But existnig drawings and illustrations can be shown as examples, publications. Especially if book has a good sales (e.g. cover of book written by Suvorov-Rezun). X-romix (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What about ArbCom?

• Discussion is wery long in Russian and English -pedia. Jimbo mean is clear. X-romix (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

From the early discussion archive, I believe this should be touched on and re-addressed.

Talk:Totalitarianism Archive 1, the word "Totalitarian" did not originally imply coercion and in Archive 2 of this discussion page user:Lapaz claims "the inventor of the term. Must be included." and user:Jmabel agrees "Certainly we should explain that the term evolved away from Gentile's meaning." I too agree.

It is however a convoluted subject to touch on, but effort should be made to convey it concisely but informatively in this article, which it doesn't (the meaning Gentile attributed to the word, not just that he *used* the word)

As someone who has read most of Gentile's works that have been translated into English, I can say it is hard to explain without knowing the breadth and depth of his work, but originally 'totalitarianism', as per his works like "Genesis & Structure of Society" meant a form of "Corporatism", where private interests and public interests were reciprocal:

It was a form of syndicalism, where free, private-vested interests "became" the state, from the bottom up, not where the state coerced and enforced it's single, unilateral will on every single aspect of life (in theory only, I'm not saying that's what the state became in action, but neither did the Soviet Union become much of what it wanted in theory as a social philosophy) but quite the opposite where every organic aspect of life that cropped up independently would be cradled and codified as a branch of the state and taken into the state apparatus as a bureaucratic entity of every private creation.

Gentile saw public & private as dialectically the same and wanted a state that recognized this (very similar to Social Credit actually, but this is OR): this was his "totalitarian state", that every diverse social difference and way of doing things would be in the legal acceptance of the state (think of a bureaucratic statist Sorelian anarcho-syndicalism; this is the anarcho-syndicalist root of Fascism in Georges Sorel: anarcho-syndicalism made into a flowering and growing state system; officializing and all-encompassing of each divergent facet of life indiscriminately, and putting the stamp of state centralization on to them when and where they expressed themselves) rather than the other way around where one legal way was espoused and all others were squashed as in a police state: which Mussolini himself said the totalitarian state as an ideology "was not"). This was the original theory.

Of course, it also makes more sense if one knows that what Gentile called "the state" was more a condition of 'natural law' than of 'positive law', something that always exists in the background that could never be denied and would always ambiently express itself by basic human interaction & even negarchy where it was denied. This should be noted as it seems most today define the state as existing in terms of positive law, and that a natural law state is more anarchist law i.e. non-state. Gentile's definition of Fascism and the modern far left come full circle in my opinion. 4.255.52.121 (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have noticed a severe deterioration in the quality of this article over the past year. Therefore, I have restored an earlier rewrite of the page. If any salvageable content has been lost, please let me know so that I may assist in restoring it. Thanks in advance. 172 | Talk 22:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from reverting to an obsolete version and from removing large portions of well-referenced text. If you believe that the old article was in some aspects better than the current one (and I guess it is in the eye of the beholder), please try to make enhancements gradually. pivovarov (talk) 08:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the text was sourced to books by Richard Pipes and other notable scholars. Please do not make blanking, without even any explanations.Biophys (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate to simply replace a 25k article with a prior version of 10k that you like. However, I'm open to reviewing the content of of the current version, the 25k version to evaluate whether it has, in fact, deteriorated. See Talk:Totalitarianism/Comments. Fred Talk 15:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This version is as close as I can find to the "rewrite" by 172. He is simply replacing the results of two years of work with his version of April, 2007. Fred Talk 17:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI

If people who watch this page are also interested in how Wikipedia is governed, be sure to check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development . Slrubenstein | Talk 13:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the first to use the term?

I don't doubt that the claim "One of the first to use the term 'totalitarianism' in the English language was the Austrian writer Franz Borkenau" is properly sourced. But the OED's first quotation for 'totalitarianism' is 1926 and it has 4 quotations for 'totalitarian' before Borkenau (including one from Ezra Pound). There's no reason to think the term wasn't in widespread use in English before Borkenau, and, whatever his importance, I can't help felling that the claim "one of the first" is positively misleading. --Pfold (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

So what's the solution here? Homunculus (duihua) 06:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture section

Please provide some refs here per WP:RS. Biophys (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing this "Original Trilogy" Star Wars bullshit. If the 'Empire' was any system it's be authoritarian.119.161.71.12 (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)INFX.com.au

a list

I think a better detailed list of the totalitarian states today would be nice touch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.95.46.162 (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hitler, Stalin, but what about…

…Mao Zedong, the leader of totalitarian Communist China? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.198.49 (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

new states

What about new totalitarian states I mean everyone focuses on stalin and hitler they're dead move on we have new guys who fit this catigory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.67.61 (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

How about a section for ANTI-Totalitarianists in popular culture?

Would this be appropriate?

Benjamin Franklin, George Orwell, Bertrand Russell, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.8.149 (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Christopher Hitchens, Karl Jaspers, Noam Chomsky, Albert Camus, etc

99.9% of the world is anti-totalitarinism so it would be redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.100.86 (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

New addition

This statement in introduction is out of place. The term was suggested as early as 1920s and it is currently used as a valid concept in modern-day books by Robert Conquest and others. Statements like that might belong to body of the article if properly formulated and sourced.Biophys (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Robert Conquest isn't exactly neutral on this issue (being a paid propagandist and all). The statement was PERFECTLY sourced and even included excerpts from Achim Siegel's respectable book. Siegel is a scholar, not a polemicist like Conquest. Now the term was indeed created in the 1920s by Giovanni Gentile, and this should be mentioned, but the classical totalitarian paradigm was formulated by fanatical anti-communists like Zbigniew Brzezinski and Hannah Arendt. So, absolutely no reason for its removal.

AngBent (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent

This is only one of many interpretations of the subject: one that is shared by orthodox marxists/communists. It should be described in the article (probably in "criticism" section), but not in the introduction, unless we want to describe all different views in introduction. Most authors who wrote about the concept consider it to be valid, including the relatively recent book by Robert Conquest. Biophys (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Scholars and especially historians dismiss Conquest's sentimental ramblings as simplistic and a-historical devices (not to mention that Conquest was a paid propagandist and polemicist). When you say "most authors", I believe you think about journalistic works that can't really be considered credible references. As indicated in the refs, the traditional concept of totalitarianism served as an all-embracing Cold War ideology, and as a (successful) propaganda tool. People like Brzezinski and Friedrich were fighting the Cold War at the time, and didn't really care for scientific work. And in the academic community, the 1950s version of totalitarianism ("evil Soviet Empire, out to destroy the American way of life") enjoys minimal support at best. And as this is an encyclopedia, we can't accept people like Robert Conquest (or other Cold Warriors, American or Russian) as neutral, scholarly sources. For example, in the Italian elections of 1948, the Italian conservatives claimed that in Soviet Russia women were nationalized, and each man would have to "rent" his wife to his neighbors, if the Pcd'I won the elections. At the time, it was a serious discussion. Is it now?

AngBent (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent

"Scholars and especially historians dismiss Conquest's sentimental ramblings"? Who said? You? "We can't accept people like Robert Conquest."? That statement goes against WP:NPOV since his works qualify as secondary WP:RS per our rules here. Biophys (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to include Conquest (a paid propagandist), then you have to include Russian CPSU historians, to keep neutrality. And you can't of course disagree with the perfectly referenced lead section's assessment that totalitarianism was created as a Cold War ideology. I have already provided additional refs to Siegel's and Defty's. Perhaps the lead should also mention that totalitarianism was first mentioned in a positive sense by Italian fascists. I will work on that too

AngBent (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent

But your own direct quotation of the source [3] and other currently quoted sources do not support your assertion that the concept was created by "anti-communist Cold War warriors". Do you imply that Richard Pipes, Leopold Labedz, Franz Borkenau, Walter Laqueur, Sir Karl Popper, Eckhard Jesse, Leonard Schapiro, Adam Ulam, Raymond Aron, Claude Lefort, Richard Löwenthal, Hannah Arendt, Robert Conquest, Karl Dietrich Bracher, Carl Joachim Friedrich and Juan Linz were all "Cold War warriors"? If so, please provide sources that claim them to be "Cold War warriors". Biophys (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Nobody would doubt the fact that people like Zbigniew Brzezinski, (NSC under Carter) Robert Conquest (paid by the CIA) and Richard Pipes (NSC under Reagan) were Cold Warriors, and of the worst type. People like Claude Lefort and those of the Frankfurt School wrote influential works in their day, but the fact remains that the 1950s concept of totalitarianism was created as a Cold War expediency. The references given demonstrate this soundly. Now that the intro also mentions the original Italian creation of the term, I think the article is just fine. AngBent (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent

You are trying to discredit the concept by attacking some authors of the concept as "fascists", "anti-communists" and "Cold War warriors". But your source does not claim that. Instead, one should focus on criticism/discussion of the concept (which is the subject here), not people. But this can not be done in introduction. Biophys (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, who are you my friend? Why don't you sign your statement? I never used the word "fascist". I did use the term Cold Warriors, because nobody would deny it (the people I called such would take it as an honor). You say that my source does not claim that. I didn't use only one source, but five or six different sources. Here's a sample:

"Concepts of totalitarianism became most widespread at the height of the Cold War. Since the late 1940s, especially since the Korean War, they were condensed into a far-reaching, even hegemonic, ideology, by which the political elites of the Western World tried to explain and even to justify the Cold War constellation".

Can you disagree with that? If you ask me, I can provide a dozen similar sources. AngBent (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent

Your edit obviously tells about "fascists" as authors of the concept. Propaganda cliche like "anti-communists" and "Cold War warriors" must be avoided pe WP:terrorist. As about "far-reaching, even hegemonic, ideology, by which the political elites of the Western World tried to explain and even to justify the Cold War constellation", this is is an example of WP:SOAP. No, I can not agree with placing this in introduction.Biophys (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

But Italian fascists ARE the authors of the concept, and this existed in the article before I made any contributions, I just put it in the intro. (read Giovanni Gentile's books) If you study the history of the Cold War, you can't dismiss the Cold Warrior label for certain people. (And i wrote "Cold Warrior", not "Cold War warrior") If you think that "anti-communist" is an insult and not just a political viewpoint, then this is your view. And Achim Siegel's quotation (along with the many other sources I have added) isn't SOAP; it's a scholarly statement, backed by years of scientific research, which can't be really disputed. Can you dispute the Professor's assertion? This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. I want to hear your arguments, not just some linguistical sophistry. Otherwise, there is no point in discussing this further. AngBent (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent

I only said that second paragraph is too POVish and should not be in introduction. Perhaps someone will fix it in a future. Not a big deal.Biophys (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)