Having no friends in the world, totalitarianism, as a term, has been defined by its enemies. I am, therefore, welcoming the challenge of examining these hostile and prejudiced definitions, to find out whether in their unpleasant midst there might be hidden some clues in support of my thesis regarding the legitimacy of the totalitarian idea, and, going even further, that this totalitarian idea can be seen as a certain political ideal of what is known as the nation-state.
This entry opens a series on the conventional definitions of the term “totalitarianism,” and we start with the one provided by the fairly obscure conservative blogger Bruce Kelly, on the vox populi principle. Here it is:
“Totalitarianism, in political science, is a system of government and ideology, in which all social, political, economic, intellectual, cultural, and spiritual activities are subordinated to the purposes of the rulers of the state. Several features distinguish totalitarianism-- a form of autocracy, peculiar to the 20th century-- from such older forms as despotism, absolutism, and tyranny. In the older autocratic forms, people could live and work in relative independence, as long as they refrained from politics. In modern totalitarianism, however, people are made utterly dependent on the wishes and whims of a political party and its leaders. The older autocracies were ruled by a monarch or other aristocrat, who governed by a principle such as divine right, whereas modern totalitarian states are ruled by a leader or dictator, who controls a political party.” (From Brucekelly.com conservative blog.)
This very first definition that I am looking at already contains a fatal flaw that instantly disqualifies it from a meaningful consideration. Proposing to distinguish “totalitarianism” from “such older forms as despotism, absolutism and tyranny,” it only muddies the water, making the distinction virtually impossible. There is no mention, for instance, of the key relationship between totalitarianism and statism. Whereas the monarch’s motto is L’état c’est moi, the totalitarian leader’s motto is L’état c’est nous. This kind of distinction is never made here.
The drawing of a distinction between an autocrat “who governed by a principle” and a leader “who controls a political party.” is obviously a ridiculous charade. As if the notorious German Führerprinzip was not a principle, by which Hitler’s Germany was governed, the logical abracadabra here is too explicit, for us to engage ourselves its refutation.
As for the requirement of totalitarianism to “control a political party,” it is neither necessary nor sufficient, that is neither here nor there, as evidenced by the current totalitarian trend in President Putin’s Russia, as he has positioned himself above the partisan fray, allowing an ever-shrinking number of “parties,” subservient to his rule, to exist for the appearance of a pluralistic façade, but joining none, and relying in his power play on other, non-partisan, state structures. The United Russia Party today is by no means an equivalent of the old Communist Party of the USSR. It is not essential to the State, I repeat, although it can indeed serve as a useful tool for it. Incidentally, some military dictatorships do not require the forming of a supporting party at all, which does not suddenly make them exempt from their totalitarian tendencies.
And now, the last point about the above definition. It concerns the citizens’ participation in politics. Being apolitical is indeed not in line with the character of the totalitarian state, but then, putting oneself outside the polity, which is what the word apolitical actually signifies, should be hardly in line with the character of any nation-state, always built along the lines of social participation in the political process.
On the other hand, it is equally ridiculous to imply that non-totalitarian autocracies would prefer apolitical subjects, that is, would rather let them apolitically alone than have them drawn into the political process. I know for a historical fact that all classic autocracies just love to interfere in the lives of their subjects, thus it becomes impossible for the latter to stay apolitical, as their existence inevitably becomes politicized.
Our next entry will tackle the definition of totalitarianism in the Wikipedia.
This entry opens a series on the conventional definitions of the term “totalitarianism,” and we start with the one provided by the fairly obscure conservative blogger Bruce Kelly, on the vox populi principle. Here it is:
“Totalitarianism, in political science, is a system of government and ideology, in which all social, political, economic, intellectual, cultural, and spiritual activities are subordinated to the purposes of the rulers of the state. Several features distinguish totalitarianism-- a form of autocracy, peculiar to the 20th century-- from such older forms as despotism, absolutism, and tyranny. In the older autocratic forms, people could live and work in relative independence, as long as they refrained from politics. In modern totalitarianism, however, people are made utterly dependent on the wishes and whims of a political party and its leaders. The older autocracies were ruled by a monarch or other aristocrat, who governed by a principle such as divine right, whereas modern totalitarian states are ruled by a leader or dictator, who controls a political party.” (From Brucekelly.com conservative blog.)
This very first definition that I am looking at already contains a fatal flaw that instantly disqualifies it from a meaningful consideration. Proposing to distinguish “totalitarianism” from “such older forms as despotism, absolutism and tyranny,” it only muddies the water, making the distinction virtually impossible. There is no mention, for instance, of the key relationship between totalitarianism and statism. Whereas the monarch’s motto is L’état c’est moi, the totalitarian leader’s motto is L’état c’est nous. This kind of distinction is never made here.
The drawing of a distinction between an autocrat “who governed by a principle” and a leader “who controls a political party.” is obviously a ridiculous charade. As if the notorious German Führerprinzip was not a principle, by which Hitler’s Germany was governed, the logical abracadabra here is too explicit, for us to engage ourselves its refutation.
As for the requirement of totalitarianism to “control a political party,” it is neither necessary nor sufficient, that is neither here nor there, as evidenced by the current totalitarian trend in President Putin’s Russia, as he has positioned himself above the partisan fray, allowing an ever-shrinking number of “parties,” subservient to his rule, to exist for the appearance of a pluralistic façade, but joining none, and relying in his power play on other, non-partisan, state structures. The United Russia Party today is by no means an equivalent of the old Communist Party of the USSR. It is not essential to the State, I repeat, although it can indeed serve as a useful tool for it. Incidentally, some military dictatorships do not require the forming of a supporting party at all, which does not suddenly make them exempt from their totalitarian tendencies.
And now, the last point about the above definition. It concerns the citizens’ participation in politics. Being apolitical is indeed not in line with the character of the totalitarian state, but then, putting oneself outside the polity, which is what the word apolitical actually signifies, should be hardly in line with the character of any nation-state, always built along the lines of social participation in the political process.
On the other hand, it is equally ridiculous to imply that non-totalitarian autocracies would prefer apolitical subjects, that is, would rather let them apolitically alone than have them drawn into the political process. I know for a historical fact that all classic autocracies just love to interfere in the lives of their subjects, thus it becomes impossible for the latter to stay apolitical, as their existence inevitably becomes politicized.
Our next entry will tackle the definition of totalitarianism in the Wikipedia.
No comments:
Post a Comment