Totalitarianism

[No Capitalism]

Does totalitarianism exist, or its just a bourgeoisie theory?

[ComradeOm]

Very much the latter. I make a couple of lengthy posts on the topic (making specific comparisons between the USSR and Nazi Germany) in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-support-t105472/index.html?highlight=totalitarianism) (particularly towards the end) and this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/soviet-nazi-joint-t106190/index.html?t=106190&highlight=totalitarianism). There's a lot of shit in the latter thread but I do make a relatively in-depth comparison between the employment of mass violence in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia

To sum both threads up:

'Totalitarianism is a bankrupt academic structure that posits that there were fundamental similarities between non-liberal states, particularly Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. Its Cold War nonsense that has little bearing on the actual regimes in question; push past the superficial similarities and you'll see that no two (supposedly) 'totalitarian' states are actually much alike. The sole purpose of this flawed methodology is in differentiating between Western liberal democracies and the 'abnormal' non-liberal states of 'the East''

[LOLseph Stalin]

Simplest definition of Totalitarianism I can give: "a society in which all aspects of life are controlled by the state". Hence Nazi Germany. As you probably know, in a Fascist society everything must be done in support of the state. Nazi Germany of course took this a step further with the whole Anti-Semitism and discrimination crap.

[Comrade Akai]

Doesn't North Korea count as a totalitarian dictatorship, or was that another lie the bourgeois told me?:confused:

[mikelepore]

The common use of the word "totalitarian", as given in the schools and media, is sloppy. The word is used to assert that the state in some countries has "total" control over the individual, which implies that there is "no" freedom. This is supposed to form a contrast with a "free" country, where you may be sent to prison for commiting a variety of victimless crimes, but the state's repression of the individual isn't "total." This whole manner of speaking is an ambiguous mess. In truth, the state's limitation of the individual is never "total", because there are always some freedoms in any situation, and a "free" society which features some civil liberties violations isn't exactly at the opposite end of this supposed axis. Leave it to the head-fixing industry to pretend that such a quantitative scale is a binary one.

[milk]

Sorry to by a niggler, and am genuinely interested, but where is the bottom level of what can be considered totalitarian? It could be argued that the Stalin-era Soviet Union until a certain time perhaps, was not totalitarian, and not before his ascendancy. There simply wasn't the solid infrastructure for it to be possible for even ever-growing structures of state coercion to implement a thorough regulation or proscribing of all citizen's activities. Although it is plainly easy to acknowledge the authoritarianism.

[KC]

Totalitarian is a bankrupt buzzword, used to incite moral indignation and used as a counterpose to "Western" bourgeois democracies. As Marxists, we should be aware that capitalism exists in many forms, and that a country that is a bourgeois democracy today can collapse into a "totalitarian dictatorship" tomorrow, and that therefore such terms are ultimately meaningless outside of liberal/neo-liberal discourse.

To take some examples, while Ba'athist Iraq or Democratic Kampuchea were controlled by authoritarian regimes, in historical discussions the control that these regimes had has been elevated to an unrealistic extreme, giving them a sort of "superhuman" appearance. This is accentuated by the teaching (in American classrooms, at least) of Orwell's 1984 and its use as historical comparison to such regimes. Basically, the mainstream discourse surrounding these historical situations is so unrealistic and exaggerated that one doesn't know whether to laugh or to cry.

[The Essence Of Flame Is The Essence Of Change]

Well being totally totalitarian for a state is (yet) not entirely possible due to material restraints.What I'm saying is that unlike in 1984 the State cannot (yet) directly regulate what you think because it simple doesn't have the necessary technology to do that.So is totalitarianism a lie?Hmm...If you think of it the State has its ways to make you think what they want and that is done in a much more hideous way in our beloved bourgeoisie ''democracy''The fact is there,some people are hungry for power and those people are leading us.How much succesfull they are in having control of you is relative from country to country,area to area and time to time

[New Tet]

Does totalitarianism exist, or its just a bourgeoisie theory?


Capitalism is the most totalitarian system the world has ever known.

[KC]

Capitalism is the most totalitarian system the world has ever known.

Capitalism is a socio-economic system, not a state, so it cannot be totalitarian.

[New Tet]

Capitalism is a socio-economic system, not a state, so it cannot be totalitarian.

Capitalism is a totalitarian socio-economic system. Happy now?

[KC]

Capitalism is a totalitarian socio-economic system. Happy now?

Socio-economic systems cannot be totalitarian.

[New Tet]

Socio-economic systems cannot be totalitarian.

Says who?

[n0thing]

Well complete totalitarianism is relatively impossible, as no government can have total control over the people. But complete egalitarianism is equally as impossible, being as it is impossible for any modern society to produce perfectly equal people. If we apply the same standards of definition to totalitarianism as we do to egalitarianism, then totalitarianism implies a system wherein governments attempt to exercise as much control as they can over the population. So in this respect, yeah, totalitarianism probably did exist at some point in the USSR. Definitely under Stalin.

And no, our capitalist system is not totalitarian. You can go to any book shop and buy Noam Chomsky books, or even books defending Stalin. Totalitarianism has shown itself to be inefficient and unsustainable. That's probably why we don't have it over here. Apathy and light touches of propaganda work wonders.

[New Tet]

And no, our capitalist system is not totalitarian. You can go to any book shop and buy Noam Chomsky books, or even books defending Stalin. Totalitarianism has shown itself to be inefficient and unsustainable. That's probably why we don't have it over here. Apathy and light touches of propaganda work wonders.

Unless you live in Cuba, you're surrounded 24/7 by the influence of capitalism. From the Dominoes pizza you eat [] to the Nike flats you wear to impress your honey, capitalism is there...

Capitalists are presently attempting to 9rivatize components of the human genome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genomes) in the form of stem-cell material. They're debating the ethics about it but in the end profit, sacred profit will win out.

Let me put it in a context that even I can understand: Darth Vader is trying to buy up all of the midi-chlorians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_%28Star_Wars%29#Midi-chlorians_and_the_Chosen_One)in the universe in a vain attempt to turn the Force completely into the Dark Side.

[ComradeOm]

Says who?Says anyone who understands what the term actually means. 'Totalitarianism' as a concept is almost exclusively used when analysing (or at least attempting to) state structures. Any use of it outside this field (ie, 'totalitarian capitalism') is nothing but mindless regurgitation of buzzwords


Unless you live in Cuba, you're surrounded 24/7 by the influence of capitalism. From the Dominoes pizza you eat [] to the Nike flats you wear to impress your honey, capitalism is there...Welcome to capitalism. There is absolutely nothing totalitarian about engaging in capitalist relations while in the capitalist mode of production. Again, to argue so betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the term itself

[OneNamedNameLess]

Doesn't North Korea count as a totalitarian dictatorship, or was that another lie the bourgeois told me?:confused:

According to some people here no. Most would disagree. I don't want to derail the thread so I am not commenting too much on the matter. If I did speak my mind on this one then believe me, the thread would end up waaaaay off topic.

[robbo203]

Simplest definition of Totalitarianism I can give: "a society in which all aspects of life are controlled by the state". .

I think this is a reasonable definition. To dismiss the term totalitarianism as a mere "buzzword" strikes me as overly pedantic. We all understand what the basic point is about: it is about the attempt by the state to impose a particular monolithic point of view on its subjects and to deny access to other points of view. It is about social and political control.

Of course totalitarianism is relative. Some states - the Nazi state or the Soviet state capitalist regime - were clearly more totalitarianism than others. To call them "totalitarian" is not to suggest that they are exactly identical and it does not strike me as a particularly credible argument to reject the term totalitarianism on the grounds that that this implies every totalitarian regime is identical to every other. Geese and swans differ but they neverthless have in common the fact that they are both types of birds.

[ComradeOm]

To dismiss the term totalitarianism as a mere "buzzword" strikes me as overly pedanticWhen words are taken from their specific field, stripped of all meaning, and used as slurs... well, its safe to say that they have become empty buzzwords. One might as well call George Bush a fascist or accuse him of being "more fascist than others". Meaningless to anyone who actually knows what fascism is


Of course totalitarianism is relative. Some states - the Nazi state or the Soviet state capitalist regime - were clearly more totalitarianism than others. To call them "totalitarian" is not to suggest that they are exactly identical and it does not strike me as a particularly credible argument to reject the term totalitarianism on the grounds that that this implies every totalitarian regime is identical to every other. Geese and swans differ but they neverthless have in common the fact that they are both types of birds.A statement that perfectly displays the underlying attitudes of those that support the totalitarian thesis. You have, perhaps unwittingly, asserted that there was some shared 'totalitarian' characteristic that sets these two regimes apart from the Western democracies, even if only by a matter of degrees. You've rejected the idea that they are "exactly identical" while supporting that of them sharing certain fundamental characteristics. They are both, in your parlance, birds... presumably to be compared with the 'fish' of liberal democracies

The are two problems with this thesis. The most obvious is that it is unsupportable by a direct comparison between Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia (the two most often given examples). Push past the superficial similarities between the regimes (invariably a matter of style) and striking and profound differences emerge in the structure of the state, its relationship with society, the role of the governing party, the employment of mass violence, views on society and social outcasts, etc etc. These are not minor shades of difference but real obstacles to asserting that some fundamental similarity exists. The latter can only be asserted, and it is invariably done so in this light, on the basis of a comparison to a third party, ie liberal democracy, with which both Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia do share profound differences. Thus 'totalitarianism' does not, as it claims to do, represent similarities between these two autocratic regimes but rather simply contrasts them both with Western society. 'Totalitarianism' is then nothing but a shorthand for 'non-liberal'

The second problem follows on from the first. If these regimes do not share certain fundamental traits then just what does the 'totalitarian' label actually mean? The traits usually associated with 'totalitarian' regimes (think 1984) are then revealed to be nothing but a fiction. This is understandable as when viewed from the outside, as the original proponents of the thesis invariably did, both Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia appeared to be large monolithic states with a staggering degree of control over an 'atomised' citizenry. Its only with their fall that we can conclusively say that they were nothing of the sort. The immense "state control" that lies at the heart of these supposed totalitarian states was nothing but a myth. Quite simply there has never been "a society in which all aspects of life are controlled by the state" (incidentally a very un-Marxist statement, but then so is the entire thesis). So what does totalitarianism actually mean if it has no basis in historical societies? It means what it always has - 1984 and the bogeyman of unfettered state control

[robbo203]

When words are taken from their specific field, stripped of all meaning, and used as slurs... well, its safe to say that they have become empty buzzwords. One might as well call George Bush a fascist or accuse him of being "more fascist than others". Meaningless to anyone who actually knows what fascism is

Certainly, it is quite possible to misuse a word such as "totalitarianism", just as it is possible to misuse a word like "socialism" or "communism". In that sense I wouldn't disagree with your thesis that words "taken from their specific field, stripped of all meaning, and used as slurs" can become "empty buzzwords" . But they dont have to, do they? They can reasonably accurately define the nature of a particular regime that evinces certain qualities captured by the definition of the term "totalitarian". The same goes for your point about fascism; by implication you are agreeing that the epithet "fascist" might be wholly appropriate under certain circumstances providing it is properly used. It is not necessarily of itself a mere buzzword


A statement that perfectly displays the underlying attitudes of those that support the totalitarian thesis. You have, perhaps unwittingly, asserted that there was some shared 'totalitarian' characteristic that sets these two regimes apart from the Western democracies, even if only by a matter of degrees. You've rejected the idea that they are "exactly identical" while supporting that of them sharing certain fundamental characteristics. They are both, in your parlance, birds... presumably to be compared with the 'fish' of liberal democracies

But that is because I think the "totalitarian thesis" is basically correct and that you are being nitpicking here. Yes, there are certain shared charactertics that unite societies like Nazi Germany and Soviet state capitalism and that justify the use of the term "totalitarian" in these instances. This is undeniable. They were not merely authoritarian in their use of political power but totalitarian in their endeavour to inculcate and impose a monolithic state idelogy on their subjects and to crush any alternative viewpoint. Sure it is a matter of degree. Liberal democracies are not particularly democratic in the sense that socialists would recognise this term. You might even plausibly argue that there are certain totalitiarian tendencies at work within liberal democracies themselves - a thesis put forward by the anthropologist Louis Dumont - but I think it is entirely reasonable to argue that there is nevertheless a certain qualitative distinction between these liberal democracies and totalitarian regimes. Quantitiative changes can of course lead to qualitative changes and we have seen this all to clearly in the case of Sri Lanka during and after its conflict with the Tamil Tigers. Here is a state that is sliding quite obviously into a form of totalitarianism with all the trappings of a totalitarian state including a muzzled and intimidated press


The are two problems with this thesis. The most obvious is that it is unsupportable by a direct comparison between Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia (the two most often given examples). Push past the superficial similarities between the regimes (invariably a matter of style) and striking and profound differences emerge in the structure of the state, its relationship with society, the role of the governing party, the employment of mass violence, views on society and social outcasts, etc etc. These are not minor shades of difference but real obstacles to asserting that some fundamental similarity exists.

So according to you then it all depends on what you regard as "superficial"and what you regard as "profound". Forgive me but I consider it to be a very profound and most important fact that you have a state that ruthlessly seeks to crush all oppostion to it and endeavours to impose a monolithic ideology on its subjects and so on. How it uses mass violence or views social outrcasts to my mind are somewhat secondary though not unimportant issues


The latter can only be asserted, and it is invariably done so in this light, on the basis of a comparison to a third party, ie liberal democracy, with which both Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia do share profound differences. Thus 'totalitarianism' does not, as it claims to do, represent similarities between these two autocratic regimes but rather simply contrasts them both with Western society. 'Totalitarianism' is then nothing but a shorthand for 'non-liberal'

Well no it doesnt just mean that does it? It can be defined in postive terms in the way I have done above and not just negatively as "non-liberal". There are, after all, many non-liberal societies that are not totalitarian so your argument does not really hold up, does it?


The second problem follows on from the first. If these regimes do not share certain fundamental traits then just what does the 'totalitarian' label actually mean? The traits usually associated with 'totalitarian' regimes (think 1984) are then revealed to be nothing but a fiction. This is understandable as when viewed from the outside, as the original proponents of the thesis invariably did, both Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia appeared to be large monolithic states with a staggering degree of control over an 'atomised' citizenry. Its only with their fall that we can conclusively say that they were nothing of the sort. The immense "state control" that lies at the heart of these supposed totalitarian states was nothing but a myth. Quite simply there has never been "a society in which all aspects of life are controlled by the state" (incidentally a very un-Marxist statement, but then so is the entire thesis). So what does totalitarianism actually mean if it has no basis in historical societies? It means what it always has - 1984 and the bogeyman of unfettered state control

Like I said totalitarianism is a matter of degree. Saying that a society is totalitarian does not mean literally that it has completely realised a kind of total 1984-style state control over its citizenry. It is a question of judgement. We can recognise totalitarianism in the very obvious intentions of the state to achieve totalitarian control over its citizenry - although whether they succeed in achieving that is another matter.

If you reject this then what are you left with? It seems to me all you are left with is a a kind of woolly political agnosticism which prohibits us from making discriminations and effectively makes a mockery of the whole term totalitarianism itself

[New Tet]

Certainly, it is quite possible to misuse a word such as "totalitarianism", just as it is possible to misuse a word like "socialism" or "communism". In that sense I wouldn't disagree with your thesis that words "taken from their specific field, stripped of all meaning, and used as slurs" can become "empty buzzwords" . But they dont have to, do they? They can reasonably accurately define the nature of a particular regime that evinces certain qualities captured by the definition of the term "totalitarian". The same goes for your point about fascism; by implication you are agreeing that the epithet "fascist" might be wholly appropriate under certain circumstances providing it is properly used. It is not necessarily of itself a mere buzzword


But that is because I think the "totalitarian thesis" is basically correct and that you are being nitpicking here. Yes, there are certain shared charactertics that unite societies like Nazi Germany and Soviet state capitalism and that justify the use of the term "totalitarian" in these instances. This is undeniable. They were not merely authoritarian in their use of political power but totalitarian in their endeavour to inculcate and impose a monolithic state idelogy on their subjects and to crush any alternative viewpoint. Sure it is a matter of degree. Liberal democracies are not particularly democratic in the sense that socialists would recognise this term. You might even plausibly argue that there are certain totalitiarian tendencies at work within liberal democracies themselves - a thesis put forward by the anthropologist Louis Dumont - but I think it is entirely reasonable to argue that there is nevertheless a certain qualitative distinction between these liberal democracies and totalitarian regimes. Quantitiative changes can of course lead to qualitative changes and we have seen this all to clearly in the case of Sri Lanka during and after its conflict with the Tamil Tigers. Here is a state that is sliding quite obviously into a form of totalitarianism with all the trappings of a totalitarian state including a muzzled and intimidated press


So according to you then it all depends on what you regard as "superficial"and what you regard as "profound". Forgive me but I consider it to be a very profound and most important fact that you have a state that ruthlessly seeks to crush all oppostion to it and endeavours to impose a monolithic ideology on its subjects and so on. How it uses mass violence or views social outrcasts to my mind are somewhat secondary though not unimportant issues


Well no it doesnt just mean that does it? It can be defined in postive terms in the way I have done above and not just negatively as "non-liberal". There are, after all, many non-liberal societies that are not totalitarian so your argument does not really hold up, does it?


Like I said totalitarianism is a matter of degree. Saying that a society is totalitarian does not mean literally that it has completely realised a kind of total 1984-style state control over its citizenry. It is a question of judgement. We can recognise totalitarianism in the very obvious intentions of the state to achieve totalitarian control over its citizenry - although whether they succeed in achieving that is another matter.

If you reject this then what are you left with? It seems to me all you are left with is a a kind of woolly political agnosticism which prohibits us from making discriminations and effectively makes a mockery of the whole term totalitarianism itself

Estocada mortal. Para mi, por lo menos una oreja. ¡Ole!

[Revy]

A totalitarian state is the extreme version of an authoritarian state.

An authoritarian state can just be a bureaucracy, or something to that effect, like a repressive/ oppressive environment. Which would apply to the United States and several other countries commonly perceived as "democratic".

But a totalitarian state is a dictatorship, where all the power resides "totally" in one hand.

Not all authoritarian states are totalitarian, but all totalitarian states are authoritarian.

[Misanthrope]

Socio-economic systems cannot be totalitarian.

What is slavery and feudalism?

[New Tet]

What is slavery and feudalism?

Authoritarian.

Totalitarian is capitalism (or the other way around).

Capitalism is in everything we do. Even a fetus, by the time it's delivered from its mother, has a price tag!

[Bright Banana Beard]

Even when I control you, that is totalitarian!! *really stupid term either way*

[New Tet]

Even when I control you, that is totalitarian!! *really stupid term either way*

Like our eloquent and lucid robbo203 pointed out, totalitarian is used as a measure of the degree of control one thing has over the other. In this case the question is, "how much control do corporate, multi-national and global capitalism [have] over the individual and over society as a whole?"

I would argue total.

BTW, this is not an original question by any stretch of my limited imagination!

[ComradeOm]

But that is because I think the "totalitarian thesis" is basically correct and that you are being nitpicking here. Yes, there are certain shared charactertics that unite societies like Nazi Germany and Soviet state capitalism and that justify the use of the term "totalitarian" in these instances. This is undeniableAs I have stated above, and in many previous posts in this thread and others, "certain shared charactertics" [sic] do not emerge from a comparison between Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. Or, to be more accurate, those regimes are "united" by only the most generalised set of criteria that could easily be applied to countless other nations throughout history. The totalitarian thesis posits not that these were merely authoritarian dictatorships (which is surely not in doubt) but that there were fundamental similarities between them. This only holds true for the most base generalisations

When you push past vague formulations (such as "imposing a monolithic state idelogy" [sic]) and actually examine the content and structures of these regimes, and their relationship with society, then it is the differences that leap out. These are not minor quibbles (or a matter of "nitpicking") but major differences between the two societies that make any model based on both to be contradictory at best. Totalitarianism as a model is based entirely on such vague criteria and superficial similarities. Push past these (ie, actually study the actual societies at hand) and a very different picture emerges. One might assert, for example, that both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were one-party states (while for some reason omitting Guinea, Egypt, Japan, Paraguay, etc) but this proves to be no basis for comparison when you accept that the roles of the party took on very different forms in each society. Ditto with the state structures - I know of no expert who would seriously contend that there was anything monolithic about Nazi Germany. I can, and indeed have in past posts, elaborate on any number of such major discrepancies

These differences cannot be simply written off as if they do not exist and it is simply dishonest to consider them irrelevant. If we accept your criteria then there are half a dozen nations in the world today that are to be considered totalitarian and countless more examples throughout history


We can recognise totalitarianism in the very obvious intentions of the state to achieve totalitarian control over its citizenry - although whether they succeed in achieving that is another matterAnd this is the sort of ridiculous statement that marks supporters of the thesis. Totalitarian states are those that seek to establish "totalitarian control"? I imagine that its the difficulty in separating supposed totalitarian regimes from mere authoritarian dictatorships that leads to such examples of circular (and un-Marxist) reasoning


If you reject this then what are you left with? It seems to me all you are left with is a a kind of woolly political agnosticism which prohibits us from making discriminations and effectively makes a mockery of the whole term totalitarianism itselfWhich is exactly my point - the term itself is a mockery. It has no basis in historical fact and is simply a slur to be used to categorise some dictatorships as worse than others. It is no coincidence that the phrase was eagerly latched onto, and greatly elaborated on, by Cold War historians eager to display some continuity between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Talmon, Pipes, Laquer, Kirkpatrick, etc, are/were all staunch anti-Communists with close connections to conservative governments or organisations

As a model for studying history 'totalitarianism', which simply ignores uncomfortable differences in favour of stressing similarities, is at best of extremely limited use. It has been largely rejected by the current generation of historians. Unfortunately it lingers on in the same vague and woolly definition that you have used

[New Tet]

As I have stated above, and in many previous posts in this thread and others, "certain shared charactertics" [sic] do not emerge from a comparison between Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. Or, to be more accurate, those regimes are "united" by only the most generalised set of criteria that could easily be applied to countless other nations throughout history. The totalitarian thesis posits not that these were merely authoritarian dictatorships (which is surely not in doubt) but that there were fundamental similarities between them. This only holds true for the most base generalisations

When you push past vague formulations (such as "imposing a monolithic state idelogy" [sic]) and actually examine the content and structures of these regimes, and their relationship with society, then it is the differences that leap out. These are not minor quibbles (or a matter of "nitpicking") but major differences between the two societies that make any model based on both to be contradictory at best. Totalitarianism as a model is based entirely on such vague criteria and superficial similarities. Push past these (ie, actually study the actual societies at hand) and a very different picture emerges. One might assert, for example, that both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were one-party states (while for some reason omitting Guinea, Egypt, Japan, Paraguay, etc) but this proves to be no basis for comparison when you accept that the roles of the party took on very different forms in each society. Ditto with the state structures - I know of no expert who would seriously contend that there was anything monolithic about Nazi Germany. I can, and indeed have in past posts, elaborate on any number of such major discrepancies

These differences cannot be simply written off as if they do not exist and it is simply dishonest to consider them irrelevant. If we accept your criteria then there are half a dozen nations in the world today that are to be considered totalitarian and countless more examples throughout history

And this is the sort of ridiculous statement that marks supporters of the thesis. Totalitarian states are those that seek to establish "totalitarian control"? I imagine that its the difficulty in separating supposed totalitarian regimes from mere authoritarian dictatorships that leads to such examples of circular (and un-Marxist) reasoning

Which is exactly my point - the term itself is a mockery. It has no basis in historical fact and is simply a slur to be used to categorise some dictatorships as worse than others. It is no coincidence that the phrase was eagerly latched onto, and greatly elaborated on, by Cold War historians eager to display some continuity between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Talmon, Pipes, Laquer, Kirkpatrick, etc, are/were all staunch anti-Communists with close connections to conservative governments or organisations

As a model for studying history 'totalitarianism', which simply ignores uncomfortable differences in favour of stressing similarities, is at best of extremely limited use. It has been largely rejected by the current generation of historians. Unfortunately it lingers on in the same vague and woolly definition that you have used

Can we then say that German Nazism (and Fascism in general) and the Soviet system would have become totalitarian had material conditions allowed them?

Has capitalism finally created the material conditions that make possible the formation of a supra-totalitarian state?

I would argue that it already has. Boo!

[robbo203]

As I have stated above, and in many previous posts in this thread and others, "certain shared charactertics" [sic] do not emerge from a comparison between Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. Or, to be more accurate, those regimes are "united" by only the most generalised set of criteria that could easily be applied to countless other nations throughout history. The totalitarian thesis posits not that these were merely authoritarian dictatorships (which is surely not in doubt) but that there were fundamental similarities between them. This only holds true for the most base generalisations

Totalitarianism is not quite the same as authoritarianism. It is a particular type of authoritarian dictatorship and involves as I said before, the complete subordination of the individual to the state in many different areas of life, the active enforcement of the official state ideology (propaganda), the linking of life chances to loyalty to the dominant party, the systematic rooting out and elimination of all opposing viewpoints in order to reinforce the dominant ideology and so on. Now these are pretty significant characteristics, the existence of which clearly points to the totalitarian nature of the regime in question.

The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany clearly shared these characteristics despite your denial. You qualify this by saying that these "regimes are "united" by only the most generalised set of criteria that could easily be applied to countless other nations throughout history". Of course, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were not the only totalitarian states ever to have existed although you exaggerate when you assert that those criteria could be applied to "countless other nations throughout history"



When you push past vague formulations (such as "imposing a monolithic state idelogy" [sic]) and actually examine the content and structures of these regimes, and their relationship with society, then it is the differences that leap out. These are not minor quibbles (or a matter of "nitpicking") but major differences between the two societies that make any model based on both to be contradictory at best. Totalitarianism as a model is based entirely on such vague criteria and superficial similarities. Push past these (ie, actually study the actual societies at hand) and a very different picture emerges.

Of course there are differences between totalitarian regimes. This is not denied. Nor indeed is it the issue. The issue is what makes these regimes totalitarian and others not. In this sense the similarities between totalitarian are emphatically not superficial. They actually bear very profoundly upon the lives of individuals. Only someone who has not lived under a totalitarian regime, who thinks the the whole notion is a just a vague formulation - a mere abstraction - can deny this. What I am criticising in your post is not your claim that are differences between totalitarian regimes - I accept this - but your sense of perspective and proportion. You dismiss what in my view is very significant, as merely "superifical" and elevate what is a secondary to a position of pre-eminence. You have it all upside down in my opinion...



One might assert, for example, that both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were one-party states (while for some reason omitting Guinea, Egypt, Japan, Paraguay, etc) but this proves to be no basis for comparison when you accept that the roles of the party took on very different forms in each society. Ditto with the state structures - I know of no expert who would seriously contend that there was anything monolithic about Nazi Germany. I can, and indeed have in past posts, elaborate on any number of such major discrepancies.

Bearing in mind the kind of characteristics that typify a totalitarian regime which I listed above and bearing in mind also the point I made earlier that totalitarianism is a relative concept, I would say that what you have is a spectrum of states under capitalism ranging between two poles of liberal bourgeois democratic and extreme totalitarianism. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were undoubtedly clustered near the latter pole. They were much more fully developed examples of totalitarianism than say Guinea or Egypt

You acknowlege they were both one party states but curiously maintain this "proves to be no basis for comparison when you accept that the roles of the party took on very different forms in each society". Oh so the fact that both had the role of forcibly maintaining the existing order of society, of striving to enforce and inculcate the official ideology among citizens, of legitimising the agenda of the state and its active suppression of all opposition - all this according to you counts for nothing...

One final thing I did not assert that totalitarian states are necessarily monolithic in fact. Totalitarianism is characterised by the systematic attempt to forcibly impose a monolithic worldview on its citizens. Slight difference.



These differences cannot be simply written off as if they do not exist and it is simply dishonest to consider them irrelevant. If we accept your criteria then there are half a dozen nations in the world today that are to be considered totalitarian and countless more examples throughout history
.

Read what I said and not what you imagine I might have said. I did not suggest there were no differences between totalitarian regimes. Nor did I suggest they are "irrelevant". My point is they need to be viewed in the context of the shared similarites of such regimes.

And yes if there are half a dozen nations in the world today that exhibit the kind of characteristic of a totalitarian regime I listed earlier then indeed we can assert that there are half a dozen totalitarain regimes in the world today. And your point is?....




Which is exactly my point - the term itself is a mockery. It has no basis in historical fact and is simply a slur to be used to categorise some dictatorships as worse than others. It is no coincidence that the phrase was eagerly latched onto, and greatly elaborated on, by Cold War historians eager to display some continuity between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Talmon, Pipes, Laquer, Kirkpatrick, etc, are/were all staunch anti-Communists with close connections to conservative governments or organisations

Oh so now I get it. Becuase the the cold war warriors on the West labeled the Soviet Union as totalitarian we must refrain from doing so ourselves or run the risk of appearing to ally ourselves with these people. We cannot just call a spade a spade. We must instead cultivate the illusion that the Soviet Union was something other than a viciously brutal -and yes totalitarian - capitalist regime rather than give succour to its enemies.

I dont know about you but for my part I prefer to call a spade a spade while making absolutely clear that socialists cannot support either side in this war of words. A plague on both their houses!!

[The Thinker]

I would simply argue that any kind of ''ism'' is a sate of mind as it is generally accepted by the public society that it is bestowed upon. The simple fact that the majority of people roaming the earth its surface are followers of the ideals and ideas constructed by it's so called leaders ads to this statement.
If we look at history we can always see it repeating itself all be it in slightly different ways. The general outlines of the story are always the same as there is generally one figure or a group of individuals that instates their beliefs and views and the rest of the ''flock'' simply follows out of interest or ignorance. Therefore it is my firm belief that no form of political direction can be defined as not being totalitarian.
Until we learn how to educate ourselves completely in the subject of right and wrong ( as what might be right to one may be wrong to another ) we will always be controlled in our way of thinking and acting.

[ZeroNowhere]

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I'm fairly sure that's not what the word 'totalitarian' means.

[The Thinker]

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I'm fairly sure that's not what the word 'totalitarian' means.

It was stated a few post back that a ''totalitarian'' regime would hold total control over it's subjects.
I stated that if that is the case any form of political leadership it being ''democratic'' or otherwise is in way way or another a form of a totalitarian regime. For it is simple fact that other's decide for which course the country you live in (and supposedly have a say in) fares. Where ever there is a dictatorship you will have no say in the matter at all and thus are living under totalitarian rule. Naturally people cannot control the way you think, however it is possible to subject people to your way of thinking and thus gaining total control over their lives and how they live it.

[ComradeOm]

Totalitarianism is not quite the same as authoritarianism. It is a particular type of authoritarian dictatorship and involves as I said before, the complete subordination of the individual to the state in many different areas of life, the active enforcement of the official state ideology (propaganda), the linking of life chances to loyalty to the dominant party, the systematic rooting out and elimination of all opposing viewpoints in order to reinforce the dominant ideology and so on. Now these are pretty significant characteristics, the existence of which clearly points to the totalitarian nature of the regime in questionWell let's look at these points in detail shall we?


...complete subordination of the individual to the state in many different areas of life...Do you care to give examples as to how this was the case? Its a classic formulation as to the degree of control exerted by so-called totalitarian governments but one that remains something of a generalisation. Just how was the individual "completely subordinated to the state"? And how does this primacy of the state differ from that of a typical authoritarian government? Finally, and this goes for all the points below, I'll expect you to demonstrate this through a comparison with both Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia

The reality is of course that the "complete subordination of the individual to the state" is a complete fantasy. No state in the history of the world has come close to achieving this and the stories of unfettered state control in either the discussed regimes came nowhere close to that of the popular imagination. For example, the state structure of Nazi Germany, far from suddenly gaining extensive new powers or revolutionising itself, remained fundamentally that of Weimar Germany. Some ministries had their powers enlarged (the realms of economics and state security spring to mind) but by and large the state apparatus at lower levels continued to function as it had pre-1933. Certainly it was little more intrusive in daily life than the post-war welfare states of Britain and France

But then I've already commented on just how absurd and un-Marxist the whole conception of an almost supernatural state enforcing its beliefs on society at large is. The idea that the state is the primary driver in society, as opposed to a product of class forces, is one that I reject entirely. The picture painted by both yourself and Western academics is of a 'statist' society in which the state has taken on a life of its own and sees its own aggrandisement, rather than class interests, as its sole raison d'etre


...the active enforcement of the official state ideology (propaganda)...So you suggest that cultural hegemony or the use of state propaganda is a uniquely totalitarian concept? The absurdity of this statement should be obvious to all

And again, I simply refuse to accept the notion that because these nations happened to have state ideologies then the massive and undeniable differences in these ideologies somehow fade into irrelevance. Where National Socialism and Marxist-Leninism influenced government actions (less than you might imagine) they did so in very different ways. Both the Nazi and Stalinist regimes viewed society in completely different lights and interacted with it in different fashions. But then you are comparing a reactionary and rabidly racist Weltanschauung with one that was obsessed with focused on modernisation and class


...the linking of life chances to loyalty to the dominant party...I've already explained the differences in the party roles here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1405411&postcount=45) but really your observation is, again, completely and utterly banal. Are you suggesting that links to a ruling party only benefit individuals in totalitarian societies? That party hacks do not benefit in other societies? That industrialists do not curry favour with politicians in capitalist societies? Even if you pull out your 'degrees' schtick, this is a very, very weak criterion

Funnily enough, according this particular point the USSR was not a totalitarian state during the Great Purges - a campaign of violence directed at the ruling party itself :lol:


...the systematic rooting out and elimination of all opposing viewpoints...A bog standard feature of authoritarianism. Toleration of political dissent is actually a relatively recent development. There are pre-modern examples of course (typically when the central state power was particularly weak) but as a characteristic of a political system, toleration of opponents is pretty much linked to the rise of liberal democracies. Which reinforces my point that totalitarianism is merely shorthand for 'non-liberal'

There are many, many regimes in the past century (and today) that continue to stifle political dissent but very few of these would be considered totalitarian by anyone but yourself. Conversely, Fascist Italy, which you no doubt do consider totalitarian, did permit a degree of opposition - Croce, for example, was permitted to continue to live and work in Italy during the fascist period

So based on the above I find your criteria to be absolutely lacking. Most of them are absurdly broad generalisations while those that are considered specifically totalitarian (in particular the idea of state control) remains completely unsupported. Each and every one of the criteria above can be attributed to Western democracies at some point in their existence (the Third Republic made the Nazis look like saints when it came to the employment of mass violence against its own citizens) while as a whole there is absolutely nothing there to differentiate Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia from simple authoritarian dictatorships. Again we return to the theme simply labelling any unliked dictatorship 'totalitarian'


Of course there are differences between totalitarian regimes. This is not denied. Nor indeed is it the issue. The issue is what makes these regimes totalitarian and others notIt is very much the issue if you attempt to build a totalitarian model based on these two regimes. This is why I continue to harp on about the differences. If there were very real differences between the Nazi and Stalinist state structures (and there where) then there can not be said to be any specifically totalitarian state structure. If there were major differences between the employment of mass violence by these regimes (again, there were) then it undermines the idea that mass violence is a characteristic of totalitarian states. If the role of the party substantially differed then how can this be held up as an aspect of some model totalitarian society. And so on

This is my problem with the totalitarian model - on almost every major count substantially differences emerge between Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia (which is not even including other typical examples) that make construction of a totalitarian framework impossible or worthless at best. Such differences are only reconciled by taking a 'bird's eye view' (which is what you accuse me of doing) whereby such differences are simply ignored. Thus the differences in party roles in society (which I keep returning to because its a major and very important difference) are ignored by simply asserting that these were one party states. The differences in state ideology, and how that influenced the state's interaction with society, are ignored in favour of noting (pointlessly so, as I pointed out above) that both employed a state ideology and propaganda... like countless other regimes

It just does not work when you actually set about studying these societies and how they operated


...is a relative conceptNo, its not. This is you misusing the term. A totalitarian state is a distinct political/social model in its own right. It is not a matter of degrees. Every major intellectual conceptualisation of the totalitarian thesis (from Rühle to Arendt to Pipes) has insisted that totalitarian regimes present a clear alternative to all other forms of government. They are to be considered a category of their own. Totalitarian states, according to the thesis, are a unique genus that can be easily distinguished from other autocracies, despotisms, and democracies

You are using the term in the propagandist sense in that any regime can be called totalitarian if it ventures too far from your supposed norms. In your use, and that of others in this thread and others, totalitarianism merely becomes a slur to be levelled at those dictatorships that exercise a hefty degree of "state control"


Oh so the fact that both had the role of forcibly maintaining the existing order of society, of striving to enforce and inculcate the official ideology among citizens, of legitimising the agenda of the state and its active suppression of all opposition - all this according to you counts for nothing...How many dictatorships can you name one in the world today, or even the past century, that does not do any of the above? All autocratic dictatorships are concerned with "maintaining the existing order", "enforcing a state ideology" and "suppressing all opposition". Which is not to mention that all states, regardless of their nature, are concerned with "legitimising the agenda of the state"

So as a criteria, and I've dealt with this above, this is hopelessly vague and does nothing to define just what a totalitarian state is. Ditto with the observation that both Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were one-party states... very few dictatorships tend to possess multi-party democracies. But this is important because it provides yet another example of how you cannot tie these regimes together without resorting to a set of generalisations so broad and so vague as to be absolutely meaningless. And if you were to come down a level (say, comparing the means of both regimes in "enforcing a state ideology") you'd find that your comparison falls apart entirely

Which is really the crux of the whole issue. Anyone can say that Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia possessed similarities, that much is obvious, but all attempts to distinguish these from other dictatorships fail due to the above. Differences are either ignored or considered irrelevant in an effort to present these two regimes as a distinct political model that is defined by certain shared traits


One final thing I did not assert that totalitarian states are necessarily monolithic in fact. Totalitarianism is characterised by the systematic attempt to forcibly impose a monolithic worldview on its citizens. Slight differenceHow can a non-monolithic state enforce a monolithic worldview? And what exactly do you mean by the latter?


And yes if there are half a dozen nations in the world today that exhibit the kind of characteristic of a totalitarian regime I listed earlier then indeed we can assert that there are half a dozen totalitarain regimes in the world today. And your point is?....Which really demonstrates just how far you've moved from the intellectual model of totalitarianism. I know of very few serious scholars (granted, there aren't many of them in this field) who would seriously suggest that there are half a dozen totalitarian states in the world today. That sort of claim is typically reserved for US neo-conservatives and other reactionaries


Oh so now I get it. Becuase the the cold war warriors on the West labeled the Soviet Union as totalitarian we must refrain from doing so ourselves or run the risk of appearing to ally ourselves with these people. We cannot just call a spade a spadeYou misunderstand. I don't suggest that a theory be abandoned because it is popular with certain Cold Warriors. It appeals to the latter because it is so blatantly bullshit

And my problem is precisely the fact that you have not called a spade a spade. Instead you've called a shovel a spade and insist that its 'fundamentally similar' to a rake


We must instead cultivate the illusion that the Soviet Union was something other than a viciously brutal -and yes totalitarian - capitalist regime rather than give succour to its enemiesI suggest you look back through this thread and find one post of mine where I suggest that Stalinist Russia was anything other than a brutal authoritarian regime. In fact feel free to go through previous posts of mine in other threads. This thread, despite your efforts to shift the terms of discussion, is not about the political model that I believe the USSR to have been (because at no point have I elaborated on that) but the bankruptcy of the totalitarian thesis. This may be hard to believe but it is possible to disagree with a particular criticism of the Stalinist system without lining up alongside its apologists


I dont know about you but for my part I prefer to call a spade a spade while making absolutely clear that socialists cannot support either side in this war of words. A plague on both their houses!!Boring. More to the point, it reveals you to possess the same ideologically driven agenda as those academics that I've so much scorn for. You can't simply accept that the USSR was a brutal dictatorship but instead have to tie it to Nazi regime... regardless of the minor inconvenience of historical fact

[robbo203]

Your response to my post reminds me somewhat of those who maintain that the Marxist notion of class is a myth. Most workers have some savings tucked away or contribute to pensions fund schemes and so on. So that makes them capitalists too. Like them,you fail to see the wood for the trees.

Totalitarianism is what is called an "ideal type", an abstraction. You consistently miss this point. Here's an example. You say "The reality is of course that the "complete subordination of the individual to the state" is a complete fantasy". Well, for starters it not quite such a a "complete" fantasy if you consider, say, the situation of a dissident in a totalitarian regime. Such a description does indeed capture something of what goes on in such a regime albeit incompletely. But the totalitarian thesis does not require that empirical reality exactly matches up to the ideal type. It is as I explained merely one pole in a political spectrum of forms of governance under capitalism, the other being the ultra liberal democratic state. Most states fall somewhere in between but a few - like the Soviet Union under Stalin and Nazi Germany do clearly approximate rather more closely the "totalitarian" ideal type.

You seem to have a rather confused idea of what totalitarianism is. Totalitarianism is not simply autocratic dictatorship though it certainly involves that. By the way you are also incorrect in suggesting it could be a premodern phenomenon of that it has existed "throughout history" by the definition given; on the contrary totalitarianism is a peculairaly modern phenomenon. Furthermore, it is not just one attribute - no doubt its is more plauisuble to say a totalitarian regime is no different from an authoritarian regime of you only look at this question one attribute at a time rather. However you need to look at the wider picture.

Totalitarianism is a constellation of ideal type attributes some of which I touched on in my earlier post and which may be realised to different degrees in different totalitarian regimes. As stated before I do not deny there are differences between totalitarian regimes but all tend to manifest to a marked degree in Pleugars words ‘a system of rule, driven by an ideology, that seeks direction of all aspects of public activity, political, economic and social, and uses to that end, at least to a degree, propaganda and terror’. This is what makes totalitarian regimes "totalitarian" and not just authoritarian. The scope scope of totalitarianism is much more wideranging and comprehensive - one might say, "totalistic" - in its intent and ideological penetration of society and in its intolerance of oppositional idoelogies. As Mussolini put it "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state". In short, totalitarianism is a much more throroughgoing and systematic attempt to incorporate and indoctirinate the individual and indeed civil society into the agenda of the state and in line with dominant ideology


There are a number of points you make which demonstrate a misunderstanding of the issues involved. I wont go through all of them but will just focus one few. Your quotes in italics

"The picture painted by both yourself and Western academics is of a 'statist' society in which the state has taken on a life of its own and sees its own aggrandisement, rather than class interests, as its sole raison d'etre" This is not a picture I recognise. In fact it is based on a completely false dichotomy. The Soviet capitalist class, for instance - those who effectively monopolised the means of production were precisely constituted by their position in the state hierachy. Through their control of the totalitarian state they effectively owned as a class the means of production and legitimised their role in society

So you suggest that cultural hegemony or the use of state propaganda is a uniquely totalitarian concept? The absurdity of this statement should be obvious to all" No I dont suggest that at all. All states employ propaganda; what is unique about totalitarian state is the purpose and manner in which it used

No, its not. This is you misusing the term. A totalitarian state is a distinct political/social model in its own right. It is not a matter of degrees. Every major intellectual conceptualisation of the totalitarian thesis (from Rühle to Arendt to Pipes) has insisted that totalitarian regimes present a clear alternative to all other forms of government Yes as an ideal type a totalitarian state is distinctive . But this is not to say it does not share certain features with authoritarian states e.g. the use of state terror; it only emphassises such features to a greater extent and in this regard it is relative. But that was not what I was getting at. My point was really that what we call a totalitarian state is a reasonable - or reltaive - approximation of an ideal type

How can a non-monolithic state enforce a monolithic worldview? And what exactly do you mean by the latter? A state may be non-monolithic in the sense that its it is comprised of different interests groups and factions but this does not in itself negate the notion of the state pumping out a broadly *monolithic* ideology. Indeed, fidelity to the dominant ideology may be precisely the means by which a particular faction of interest group might promote its own interests


Funnily enough, according this particular point the USSR was not a totalitarian state during the Great Purges - a campaign of violence directed at the ruling party And who directed this campaign of violence if not from within the ruling party itself?


I suggest you look back through this thread and find one post of mine where I suggest that Stalinist Russia was anything other than a brutal authoritarian regime. I didnt suggest otherwise but then by the same token you should not suggest that socialists who regard the Soviet Union as a totalitarian state as simply pushing the same agenda as liberal academics who happen to come to the same conclusion

[Kwisatz Haderach]

But that is because I think the "totalitarian thesis" is basically correct and that you are being nitpicking here. Yes, there are certain shared charactertics that unite societies like Nazi Germany and Soviet state capitalism and that justify the use of the term "totalitarian" in these instances. This is undeniable. They were not merely authoritarian in their use of political power but totalitarian in their endeavour to inculcate and impose a monolithic state idelogy on their subjects and to crush any alternative viewpoint. Sure it is a matter of degree. Liberal democracies are not particularly democratic in the sense that socialists would recognise this term. You might even plausibly argue that there are certain totalitiarian tendencies at work within liberal democracies themselves - a thesis put forward by the anthropologist Louis Dumont - but I think it is entirely reasonable to argue that there is nevertheless a certain qualitative distinction between these liberal democracies and totalitarian regimes. Quantitiative changes can of course lead to qualitative changes and we have seen this all to clearly in the case of Sri Lanka during and after its conflict with the Tamil Tigers. Here is a state that is sliding quite obviously into a form of totalitarianism with all the trappings of a totalitarian state including a muzzled and intimidated press.
But every state - and in fact every society, with or without a state - has limits on the range of political views that are considered acceptable. If your views fall outside this range, you will face varying degrees of scorn, ridicule, hostility, persecution, and physical violence. It seems to me that the only difference between liberal democracies and "totalitarian" states is the size of the acceptable political spectrum. In liberal democracies, the acceptable spectrum is wider (i.e. you must agree with capitalism, but you are free to choose your own brand of capitalism). In "totalitarian" societies it is narrower (i.e. you must not only support the existing system, but every single political stance of the ruling party as well).

Every state tries to impose an ideology on its citizens. It just so happens that some ideologies are broader or more inclusive than others. The states which try to impose very narrowly defined or exclusive ideologies get called "totalitarian," even though there is no fundamental difference between them and other states.

[The Thinker]

But every state - and in fact every society, with or without a state - has limits on the range of political views that are considered acceptable. If your views fall outside this range, you will face varying degrees of scorn, ridicule, hostility, persecution, and physical violence. It seems to me that the only difference between liberal democracies and "totalitarian" states is the size of the acceptable political spectrum. In liberal democracies, the acceptable spectrum is wider (i.e. you must agree with capitalism, but you are free to choose your own brand of capitalism). In "totalitarian" societies it is narrower (i.e. you must not only support the existing system, but every single political stance of the ruling party as well).

Every state tries to impose an ideology on its citizens. It just so happens that some ideologies are broader or more inclusive than others. The states which try to impose very narrowly defined or exclusive ideologies get called "totalitarian," even though there is no fundamental difference between them and other states.

I couldn't agree more.
I also fail to see the difference between any sort of political state in this matter. Whether or not I misunderstand the webster's dictionary definition of the word I still see any form of 'politics' as 'totalitarian' one way or the other. Perhaps someone can enlighten me if I fail to see your points.

[ComradeOm]

Totalitarianism is what is called an "ideal type", an abstractionWell at least you've accepted the fact that the thesis has absolutely no basis in historical fact. Your thesis, note the difference with more accepted variants below, is nothing more than a "Sorellian myth", if I may quote Gramsci, "that is, a political construct which is not presented as cold utopia or as a rational doctrine, but as a creation of fantasy". You have conjured up this idealised totalitarian society which remains a figment of your own imagination and you've preceded to judge societies on how close you perceive them to have approached this ideal. This is fantasy without basis in historical fact. The early proponents of the totalitarian thesis were working from a position of ignorance, later historians relied on ideological bias, but you have bested both by simply plucking a set of arbitrary criteria from the sky and applying them to caricatures

I might as well point out that this is merely a logical retreat. You've completely failed to present any historical evidence whatsoever that Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were fundamentally similar states. You've attempted to brush under the rug those real differences that I have raised by retreating to ever higher levels of generalisations. Now you've entered the real of the abstract. Where to next?

Its also worth noting that with each post you fashion your own idiosyncratic definition and move further and further from the accepted notion of totalitarianism. Arendt, and other original thinkers on this subject, did not view totalitarianism as some abstracted ideal that states may approach or recede from. Nor have more modern historians on the subject worked within such a framework. Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia are not simply regimes that closest fit the totalitarian 'ideal' but are themselves distinct state models that can be sharply differentiated from other government types. That is, totalitarian is not merely a "subset of authoritarianism" but entails, according to its advocates, "qualitative differences between [totalitarian] regimes... and the countless dictatorial systems that have existed throughout history" (M., Curtis). Totalitarianism is therefore not employed simply as an abstract ideal but to denote a fundamentally different genus of political systems. To use your initial analogy, they are birds in a world of fish

Your talk of some sort of sliding scale of authoritarianism, however interesting an avenue of discussion it may be, is essentially bullshit in the context of this discussion. It is you taking the totalitarian thesis and reshaping it according to your own opinions/views. In short, as I mentioned a few posts back, you are misusing the term. In particular you've taken a specific historical/political term and turned it into an extremely broad buzzword. Like the common use of fascism


You say "The reality is of course that the "complete subordination of the individual to the state" is a complete fantasy". Well, for starters it not quite such a a "complete" fantasy if you consider, say, the situation of a dissident in a totalitarian regimeConsider the tolerated level of dissent in any authoritarian dictatorship. Can you demonstrate the differences? Because this is the crux of the issue. According to the totalitarian thesis there are qualitative differences in character, structure, and operations between totalitarian governments and the mundane dictatorships. If such a difference does not exist - and you've yet to show how it does - then this calls the viability of the model (the integrity of which I've already strenuously objected to) into question. If violence in a totalitarian society does not differ in means or direction from that of your average authoritarian dictatorship then on what basis are you to argue that there is such a distinction?


In short, totalitarianism is a much more throroughgoing and systematic attempt to incorporate and indoctirinate the individual and indeed civil society into the agenda of the state and in line with dominant ideologyI'm getting tired of this. Again I ask you to demonstrate this by historical comparison. I want specifics instead of abstract platitudes


"The picture painted by both yourself and Western academics is of a 'statist' society in which the state has taken on a life of its own and sees its own aggrandisement, rather than class interests, as its sole raison d'etre" This is not a picture I recognise. In fact it is based on a completely false dichotomy. The Soviet capitalist class, for instance - those who effectively monopolised the means of production were precisely constituted by their position in the state hierachy. Through their control of the totalitarian state they effectively owned as a class the means of production and legitimised their role in societyAnd here you are either in denial or desperately trying to reconcile totalitarianism with Marxism. You do this by constructing seemingly innocent sentences and then inserting that magic word - 'totalitarian'. The Soviet ruling class did not merely control the state or society but exercised "totalitarian control" and comprised a "totalitarian state". Sometimes I wonder if you really know what that word means

I'll spell this out to you - totalitarianism entails a rejection of class analysis. The image of the all-powerful totalitarian state inevitably clashes with the Marxist view of the state as an instrument of class control. According to Arendt totalitarian states are the product of a society that has become 'atomised' and indeed 'classless'. What remains are the 'masses' (which are prevented from forming class conciousness) and the state that controls their existence. Scase goes so far as to say that "In totalitarian states the sovereign corporation is not the state but the party. The relative (but considerable) autonomy of the party vis-a-vis... the social classes is one of the chief traits of totalitarianism". Needless to say, the later US historians in this field rarely feel the need to even acknowledge the existence of social classes

Now you may of course retort that this is not what you meant but, as I hope I've made clear above, I'm not discussing a political model that exists only in your head but am criticising the totalitarian thesis as understood by those intellectuals who devised and continue to advocate variants of it


So you suggest that cultural hegemony or the use of state propaganda is a uniquely totalitarian concept? The absurdity of this statement should be obvious to all" No I dont suggest that at all. All states employ propaganda; what is unique about totalitarian state is the purpose and manner in which it usedHow? Again you display the infuriating habit of addressing such an important point in vague generalities. Keep in mind as well that I'm just waiting to open a discussion on the differences between Nazi and Stalinist propaganda, their views and interactions with society, and their views of each other. I think you'll find that, as with most aspects of these regimes, the "purpose and manner" to which they employed propaganda contains significant differences that make such blasé comparisons difficult at best


How can a non-monolithic state enforce a monolithic worldview? And what exactly do you mean by the latter? A state may be non-monolithic in the sense that its it is comprised of different interests groups and factions but this does not in itself negate the notion of the state pumping out a broadly *monolithic* ideology. Indeed, fidelity to the dominant ideology may be precisely the means by which a particular faction of interest group might promote its own interestsFirst of all, this assertion is in complete conflict with the totalitarian model. Curtis notes that "embedded in the concept of totalitarianism is the assumption of a monolithic entity with clarity in both jurisdiction and decision making". Shtromas et al go further and insist that "the basic task of... totalitarian headships" is the "incorporation of mere structural elements into a fully monolithic and all-encompassing political system"

Which is of course completely incorrect but logically consistent. The same can not be said about your rather un-Marxist statement. The idea that disparate groups are somehow welded together by a single 'monolithic' ideal is, well, idealistic to say the least. That is, you are suggesting that different groups/factions/bodies with different roles and ambitions could simply set aside their material differences and produce a coherent and uniform ideological line. Which makes very little sense

Of course on a historical level its all complete bullshit. Nazi notables got ahead not by loyalty or adherence to National Socialism (ideology in the NSDAP, much like the Italian Fascists, being jettisoned at an early stage during the transformation to the party as a vehicle for the Hitler) while official dogma in the USSR was notoriously fickle. Party bureaucrats in Stalinist Russia paid lip service to Marxist-Leninist ideals while attempting to decipher the ever shifting, and rarely clear, instructions and policies of Moscow. Hence the great deal of confusion and 'interpretation' that went on at the lower level of Soviet politics. Again, this is an example of your broad brushstokes breaking down when confronted with reality


I didnt suggest otherwise but then by the same token you should not suggest that socialists who regard the Soviet Union as a totalitarian state as simply pushing the same agenda as liberal academics who happen to come to the same conclusionYou explicitly stated that you "think the 'totalitarian thesis' is basically correct". Did you ever think to look around and see what sort of characters shared your opinion? In fact, did you ever think to do some research to discover just what this totalitarian thesis was?