or would you say communism is inherently totalitarianist? Keep in mind, i am presently enjoying that school of thought, so i do not want trot criticisms.
Results 1 to 20 of 26
totalitarianism?
Would you say that this school of thought is fascism and communism combined in some aspects i.e. a lot of influence on the state but also workers control of prod? Please leave answers and not criticisms, thank you!
"Is it the navajo indians who make it a point always to leave in their woven rugs and other artifacts some slight imperfections, in order not to compete with the gods? I think it is. Well, i have no gods, and so i can't justify my shortcomings as do the navajos."
"The proletariat uses the state not in the interests of freedom, but in order to hold down its adversaries..." - Friedrich Engels
or would you say communism is inherently totalitarianist? Keep in mind, i am presently enjoying that school of thought, so i do not want trot criticisms.
"Is it the navajo indians who make it a point always to leave in their woven rugs and other artifacts some slight imperfections, in order not to compete with the gods? I think it is. Well, i have no gods, and so i can't justify my shortcomings as do the navajos."
"The proletariat uses the state not in the interests of freedom, but in order to hold down its adversaries..." - Friedrich Engels
I don't think that "totalitarianism" represents any kind of a school of (political) thought. Instead, it is basically a concept employed by liberals and aimed at any kind of a political structure which differs from the "norm" of liberal, multi-party democracy.
No, communism is not "inherently totalitarian" (no such thing as a totalitarian-ism). If anything should be said on the problem of democracy, communism extends the political liberties of individual workers (and of course that this entails, as we're talking about a class dictatorship, foaming at the mouth) and functions as an process of empowerment and emancipation.
FKA LinksRadikal
“The possibility of securing for every member of society, by means of socialized production, an existence not only fully sufficient materially, and becoming day by day more full, but an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties – this possibility is now for the first time here, but it is here.” Friedrich Engels
"The proletariat is its struggle; and its struggles have to this day not led it beyond class society, but deeper into it." Friends of the Classless Society
"Your life is survived by your deeds" - Steve von Till
No.
'Totalitarianism' as a description of political systems originated as a term of approval among the theoreticians of Italian Fascism, and then was taken up after WWII as part of the attempt to link the Fascist/Nazi countries with the Stalinist states, as part of the Cold War ideology.
For some of us of course, the Stalinist states were capitalist anyway, and had no aspects of 'workers' control of production'. So there is no genuine 'communism' in the notion of totalitarianism anyway.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
Totalitarianism has no practical meaning, it just means 'something I don't like'. Every system must be "totalitarian" to function, for example, right now, capital itself is totalitarian, creeping into and commodifying everything it possibly can, capital is the dictator.
GourmetPez: Don't you know anything about
communism? We're for the enslavement of the Aryan
race by a global semitic reptilian dictatorship. Black
people will own white slaves, homosexuality will be
taught in schools, mad blunts will be smoked.
so your then saying its less a system and rather, some leaders of any type of political ideology, embrace aspects of "totalitarian rule".
"Is it the navajo indians who make it a point always to leave in their woven rugs and other artifacts some slight imperfections, in order not to compete with the gods? I think it is. Well, i have no gods, and so i can't justify my shortcomings as do the navajos."
"The proletariat uses the state not in the interests of freedom, but in order to hold down its adversaries..." - Friedrich Engels
Im obviously a proponent in the USSR system. Ive read a great many of stalins early works and it is obvious, in my opinion, that he was a strong marxist but he did have some total. aspects of the USSR
"Is it the navajo indians who make it a point always to leave in their woven rugs and other artifacts some slight imperfections, in order not to compete with the gods? I think it is. Well, i have no gods, and so i can't justify my shortcomings as do the navajos."
"The proletariat uses the state not in the interests of freedom, but in order to hold down its adversaries..." - Friedrich Engels
Totalitarianism is a specific political structure which can be used by many political ideologies in order to control a nation-state. It involves, as it's name implies, the total control of the society by the party at hand and this is usually enforced through the state as it has all the mechanisms in place for socio-political dominance.
It is often used as a synonym to fascism.
If we have no business with the construction of the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be.
- Karl Marx
Totalitarianism is just a buzzword utilized by the political establishment (liberals and conservatives alike). It has no real place here as far as I'm concerned.
As for the idea that one could 'combine' aspects of communism and fascism, no, this isn't possible. The two are drastically different from one another; fascism, as a strictly counterrevolutionary movement, represents the final defense of capital and typically arises in response to growing shifts within the working-class at a time of great upheaval. For Germany it was the collapse of the Kaiser and the rise to power of the SPD and other workers' organizations, in Spain the Republican government and the ensuing civil war. There are many other such examples, but the key thing to notice (if nothing else) is this: the desperation of the bourgeoisie in these instances revealed the extent to which they were willing to preserve their power and standing over class society and the means of governance and production, resorting to the most brutal methods to keep it.
Communism is diametrically opposed to fascism in all its totality, so no - it is not "inherently totalitarian." If you're merely equating communism with state ownership of the economy, you don't have a very clear conception of what it is. Menocchio put it best, I think. But what's the point of asking a question if you don't want to hear any criticisms? Trotskyists aren't the only ones who would take issue with what you've outlined here, so there's no point in singling them out. All in all, asking a question only to say you don't want to hear a specific group's answer is ridiculous. Kinda defeats the purpose I'd say.
"Socialist ideas become significant only to the extent that they become rooted in the working class."
"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. . .Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."
SocialistWorker.org
International Socialist Review
Marxists Internet Archive
Yeah, 3 Left Comms, an Anarchist and a Troskyist (sorry August, no idea what your tendency is) probably aren't going to be the best people to answer the question in any kind of 'pro-Stalin' sort of way.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
No it's not. Totalitarianism is not "any kind of a political structure which differs from the "norm" of liberal, multi-party democracy." In political science, totalitarianism refers to a specific form of highly authoritarian regimes. Belarus and Morocco, for instance, are not liberal democracies, yet do not qualify as totalitarian.
This is just lousy semantics. Totalitarianism does not mean any system that is "total." Totalitarianism, obviously, was derived from "total" but doesn't mean that that is its meaning. The fact that you can speak your mind proves you do not live in a totalitarian regime.
totalitarianism, form of government that theoretically permits no individual
freedom and that seeks to subordinate all aspects of the individual’s life to the authority of the government. Italian dictator Benito Mussolini coined the term totalitario in the early 1920s to describe the new fascist state of Italy, which he further described as: “All within the state, none outside the state, none against the state.
Totalitarianism is often distinguished from dictatorship, despotism, or tyranny by its supplanting of all political institutions with new ones and its sweeping away of all legal, social, and political traditions.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...otalitarianism
In essence, totalitarianism seeks to enforce, through direct physical coercion, societal homogeneity.
pew pew pew
thank you! this is the best answer i've read so far. The main reason i asked is that it seemed Stalin implied total. rule in some aspects of the ussr. is it possible to implement some aspects of total. while still being a "communist"?
"Is it the navajo indians who make it a point always to leave in their woven rugs and other artifacts some slight imperfections, in order not to compete with the gods? I think it is. Well, i have no gods, and so i can't justify my shortcomings as do the navajos."
"The proletariat uses the state not in the interests of freedom, but in order to hold down its adversaries..." - Friedrich Engels
No.
And further, Stalin/the state did not have total some icy totalitarian grip over the entire USSR. The country was pretty much a giant, chaotic clusterfuck all day every day.
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
Read 1984 to know what Totalitarianism is
Why are you asking these questions?
Why do you want to know if communism is compatible with totalitarianism? Don't you think a better question would be: What is the best way to create working class liberation?
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
Leave your totalitarianism at the door. It reeks of antagonistic class relations and we in the house of communism have sensitive allergies and need stateless air quality.
Totalitarianism is just authoritarian rule taken to an extreme, until it encompasses every aspect of life.
But it is mainly used as nothing but propaganda to the point that it has sort of lost that meaning, kind of like how nazi is thrown around constantly to describe anything bad.
If you posit to be a communist (communism being stateless and all) how on earth would totalitarian rule exist?
