TOTALITY AND INTERNAL OPPOSITION

This entry continues the line of the previous one on Patriotism And Dissent. Considering that the essence of the totalitarian ideal is social totality, it appears that this ideal precludes internal opposition: otherwise, where do we find “totality”?

There are two interesting questions in this regard. Let us start with the first one: is an absence of opposition a good thing or a bad thing? A reasonable answer on the Western-type democratic-pluralistic side ought to be this: Opposition to power is historically a natural thing; it is also one of the prerequisites of civil society. Therefore, an absence of opposition is an unnatural thing, which implicitly indicates a bad thing.

It is hard to disagree with the logic of such an answer, but it does come from one side of the issue only. The other side, which in many societies constitutes an absolute majority of people, would argue that opposition is, on the contrary, a very bad thing, as it surely undermines social unity, cohesiveness, etc. In other words, it undermines the principle of social totality and weakens the nation’s ability to present a united front vis-à-vis her ever-watchful enemies, while providing no helpful reassurance to its friends.

Whom are we to believe? A Western democrat will definitely support the first opinion, while a totalitarian is sure to embrace the opposing view. But do we really have to jump to pre-packaged conclusions in this kind of debate? There can be no objectivity and no scientific value in taking sides before presenting an issue of this nature for a meaningful discussion. Indeed, we must first study an issue, especially one already tainted by prejudice, before taking sides. Otherwise, we become part of a herd, unthinkingly following the routine, pre-determined for us by the shepherds, rather than members of the human race distinguished from all other animals by our ability to think for ourselves.

In the present case, my purpose is not to uphold the totalitarian ideal against the Western democratic ideal, but only to restore the former’s legitimacy as a rightful participant in a serious intellectual discussion of the multitude of social issues that arise immediately whenever we stop taking the Western democratic ideal for granted by default, and deign to consider its theoretical alternatives.

Now, when we do consider the alternatives, we come to realize that here is not a black-and-white issue, but a full-blown case for a healthy debate, as each side comes to it armed to the teeth with its ‘pros’ against the other side’s ‘contras.’ Meantime, a follow-up question to the original first one comes up right now:

Regardless of its raw “democratic” appeal, how can we defend something evil, even if this evil did enjoy an undeniable mass support in its time? How can we defend the regimes that brought us Hitler and Mussolini? (Although Stalin was a bona fide totalitarian, I refuse to utter his name in the same breath as the other two. After all, Stalin was the great cause of those others’ defeat in World War II, and sparing him, the victor, the undeserved indignity of being put alongside the defeated, is only fair!)

To continue this logic, here is another subject of mass appeal: pornography. Are we going to defend it too, under the customary umbrella of free speech, and such?

No, I will never rise to the defense of pornography, seeing it as a horrific social evil. But in that case I shall never pretend to be an “objective rejecter.” On the contrary, I shall stipulate my treatment of that matter with an extreme prejudice. I do not have a similar prejudice, however, in the case of the totalitarian versus the democratic ideal.

Totalitarianism, and its logic of delegitimizing any opposition to itself, cannot be pronounced evil based on the experience of Hitler’s Germany. That will be a classic case of condemning the general on the basis of a particular: an elementary logical error. Curiously, there is a much better example of pure totalitarianism and its logical denial of the opposition. It is the Catholic Christian Church of yore, and the Vatican today. One can easily surmise the Church’s attitude to the opposition: as soon as a Church dogma becomes the law, its detractors are denounced as heretics, and anathemized. Can any modern detractor of totalitarianism speak out against the said practice of the Church, and against her attitude toward all opposition, and call her evil on that basis? I don’t think so. Mind you, I am not talking about an honest disagreement, but about a moral condemnation, which makes all the difference in the point that I am driving at.

Thus, we are coming to the concluding portion of this entry. There is an obvious contradiction between the principles of totality and opposition, in the sense that opposition is the logical nemesis of totality. Does this imply that the two are both physical and metaphysical foes? Yes! Does this imply that either one of them is evil? No!