Shopping on line can be easy, simple and save you lots of money. It can also take a lot of your time, frustrate you, and result in unwanted purchases. Now the same can be said for regular high street shopping, but with the vast opportunity presented by the Internet it will pay you to spend a few minutes reading this and understanding how to better optimize your Totalitarianism shopping experience:
1. Compare - without doubt the biggest advantage that the Totalitarianism offers shoppers today is the ability to compare thousands of Totalitarianism at a time. This is a great thing, but not necessarily all the time! Too much can be daunting at times so take advantage of the great comparison sites and where possible let them do the hard work for you.
2. Research - if it has been said it will be on the internet. Ignorance is no longer a justifiable reason for buying the wrong thing. Take the time to research in detail everything that you could possible want to know about
3. Testimonials - don't know anybody that has bought a Totalitarianism? Wrong! If the Totalitarianism is good the internet will let you know. Use the Internet as a friend and get testimonials before you buy.
4. Questions - Got a question about Totalitarianism then search the Forums, FAQ's, Blogs etc. Don't be afraid to ask .....
5. Reputation - Never heard of the company selling Totalitarianism? Don't worry, no reason why you should know every company in the world, but you know someone that does! Use the internet to find out what people are saying about Totalitarianism and build up a picture of their reputation for sales, returns, customer service, delivery etc.
6. Returns - still worried that even after all of the above your Totalitarianism wont be what you want? Check out the returns policy. There is so much competition now that someone, somewhere is bound to offer the terms that you are comfortable with.
7. Feedback - happy with your Totalitarianism then let people know, after all you are depending on others people input in your buying decision, so why not give a little back.
8. Security - check for the yellow padlock on the Totalitarianism site before you buy, and the s after http:/ /i.e. https:// = a secure site
9. Contact - got a question about Totalitarianism, or want to leave a comment then check out the sites contact page. Reputable companies have them and respond.
10. Payment - ready to pay for your Totalitarianism, then use your credit card or PayPal! Be aware of companies that don't accept them, there may be genuine reasons but given the huge amount of choice you have when buying online there is no reason at all not to buy via credit card or PayPal.
Totalitarianism is a term employed by some scientists, especially those in the field of comparative politics, to describe modern
regimes in which the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior.
Most critics of the concept say that the term lacks explanatory power. They argue that governments that may be classified as totalitarian often lack characteristics said to be associated with the term. They may not be as monolithic as they appear from the outside, if they incorporate several groups, such as the army, political leaders, industrialists, which compete for power and influence. In this sense, these regimes may exhibit Pluralism (political philosophy) through the involvement of several groups in the political process.Peter Burnham "Totalitarianism"
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Ed. Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan. Oxford University Press, 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.
Use of the term
The term
totalitarianismo, employed in the writings of the philosopher
Giovanni Gentile, was popularized in the 20th century by the
Italy fascism under
Benito Mussolini. The original meaning of the word as described by Mussolini and Gentile (G. Gentile & B. Mussolini in "La dottrina del fascismo" 1932) was a society in which the ideology of the state had influence, if not power, over most of its citizens. According to them, thanks to modern technologies like radio and the printing press, which the state could, and probably would, use to spread its ideology, most modern nations would naturally become totalitarian in the above-stated sense.
While originally referring to an 'all-embracing, total state,' the label has been applied to a wide variety of regimes and orders of rule in a critical sense. Isabel Paterson, in
The God of the Machine (1943) used the term in connection with the collectivist societies of
Nazi Germany and the
Soviet Union.
Karl Popper, in
The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945) and
The Poverty of Historicism (
1961) developed an influential critique of totalitarianism: in both works, he contrasted the "open society" of
liberal democracy with totalitarianism, and argued that the latter is grounded in the belief that history moves toward an immutable future, in accord with knowable laws. During the
Cold War period, the term gained renewed currency, especially following the publication of
Hannah Arendt's
The Origins of Totalitarianism (
1951). Arendt argued that
Nazi and
Stalinist regimes were completely new forms of government, and not merely updated versions of the old
tyrannies. According to Arendt, the source of the mass appeal of totalitarian regimes was their ideology, which provided a comforting, single answer to the mysteries of the past, present, and future. For
Nazism, all history is the history of racial struggle; and, for Marxism, all history is the history of class struggle. Once that premise was accepted by the public, all actions of the regime could be justified by appeal to the Law of History or Nature. Dana Richard Villa (2000).
The Cambridge Companion to Hannah Arendt. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521645719 p. 2-3
Cold War-era research
The political scientists
Carl Friedrich and
Zbigniew Brzezinski were primarily responsible for expanding the usage of the term in university social science and professional research, reformulating it as a paradigm for the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin as well as fascist regimes. For Friedrich and Brzezinski, the defining elements were intended to be taken as a mutually supportive organic entity comprised of the following: an elaborating guiding ideology; single-party state, typically led by a dictator; a system of terror; a monopoly of the means of communication and physical force; and central direction and control of the economy through
planned economy. Such regimes had initial origins in the chaos that followed in the wake of the World War I, at which point the sophistication of modern weapons and communications enabled totalitarian movements to consolidate power in Italy,
Germany, and Russia.
Eric Hoffer in his book
The True Believer argues that mass movements like Communism, Fascism and Nazism had a common trait in picturing Western democracies and their values as decadent, with people "too soft, too pleasure-loving and too selfish" to sacrifice for a higher cause, which for them implies an inner moral and biological decay. He further claims that those movements offered the prospect of a glorious, yet imaginary, future to frustrated people, enabling them to find a refuge from the lack of personal accomplishments in their individual existence. Individual is then assimilated into a compact collective body and "fact-proof screens from reality" are established.Eric Hoffer,
The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, Harper Perennial Modern Classics (2002), ISBN 0060505915, p.61, 163
Criticism and recent work with the concept
In the social sciences, the approach of Friedrich and Brzezinski came under criticism from scholars who argued that the Soviet system, both as a political and a social entity, was in fact better understood in terms of
interest groups, competing elites, or even in social class terms (using the concept of the
nomenklatura as a vehicle for a new ruling class). These critics pointed to evidence of popular support for the regime and widespread dispersion of power, at least in the implementation of policy, among sectoral and regional authorities. For some followers of this 'pluralist' approach, this was evidence of the ability of the regime to adapt to include new demands. However, proponents of the totalitarian model claimed that the failure of the system to survive showed not only its inability to adapt but the mere formality of supposed popular participation. Its proponents do not agree on when the Soviet Union ceased to be describable as totalitarian.
The notion of "post-totalitarianism" was put forward by political scientist Juan Linz . For certain commentators, such as Linz and Alfred Stepan, the Soviet Union entered a new phase after the abandonment of mass terror on Stalin's death. Discussion of "post-totalitarianism" featured prominently in debates about the reformability and durability of the Soviet system in
comparative politics.
As the Soviet system disintegrated in the late
1980s and early
1990s, opponents of the concept claimed that the transformation of the Soviet Union under Mikhail Gorbachev, and its subsequent sudden collapse, demonstrated that the totalitarian model had little explanatory value for researchers. Several decades earlier, for example,
Bertram Wolfe in
1957 claimed that the Soviet Union faced no challenge or change possible from society at large. He called it a "solid and durable political system dominating a society that has been totally fragmented or atomized," one which will remain "barring explosion from within or battering down from without." Many classic theories of totalitarianism discounted the possibility of such change; however, later theorists not only acknowledged the possibility but in fact encouraged and welcomed it. Any suggestions of the indefinite stability of states labeled totalitarian among proponents of the term were largely discredited when the Soviet Union fell by the wayside.
In recent work, Slovenian philosopher and critic Slavoj Zizek has aimed at the concept of totalitarianism itself, claiming that its political usage is purely ideologically-driven. In his collection of five essays "Did somebody say Totalitarianism?", Zizek rethinks the usage of this notion and suggests that it functions as a "tamer of free radicals". In other words, to those political processes that we cannot explain or understand from within the logic of
liberal democracy, we simply disregard by tagging them as totalitarian.
Political usage
While the term fell into disuse during the 1970s among many Soviet specialists, other commentators found the typology not only useful for the purposes of classification but for guiding official policy. In her
1979 essay for
Commentary, "
Dictatorships and Double Standards",
Jeane Kirkpatrick argued that a number of foreign policy implications can be drawn by distinguishing "totalitarian" regimes from autocracy in general. According to Kirkpatrick, typical autocracies are primarily interested in their own survival, and as such have allowed for varying degrees of
Wiktionary:autonomy regarding elements of
civil society,
religion, court, and journalism. On the other hand, under totalitarianism, no individual or institution is autonomous from the state's all-encompassing ideology. Therefore, U.S. policy should distinguish between the two and even grant support, if temporary, to non-totalitarian autocratic governments in order to combat totalitarian movements and promote U.S. interests. Kirkpatrick's influence, particularly as foreign policy adviser and United Nations
ambassador, was essential to the formation of the Reagan administration's foreign policy and her ideas came to be known as the "
Kirkpatrick Doctrine."Jeane Kirkpatrick, "Dictatorships and Double Standards",
Commentary (magazine), October 1979.
See also
Notes
References
- Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1958, new ed. 1966)
- Michel Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, in particular March 7, 1979 course
- Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski, Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (2nd edn 1967)
- Jeane Kirkpatrick, Dictatorships and Double Standards: Rationalism and reason in politics (1982)
- Ewan Murray, Shut Up: Tale of Totalitarianism (2005)
- Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan, Problems of Democratic Consolidation (1996)
- J. L. Talmon, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, (1952)
- John A. Armstrong, The Politics of Totalitarianism (New York: Random House, 1961)
- Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War (1944)
- Slavoj Zizek, Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism? (London: Verso, 2001)
External links
- Dictatorship Watch, putting totalitarianism in perspective
Totalitarianism is a term employed by some scientists, especially those in the field of
comparative politics, to describe modern regimes in which the
state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior.
Most critics of the concept say that the term lacks explanatory power. They argue that governments that may be classified as totalitarian often lack characteristics said to be associated with the term. They may not be as monolithic as they appear from the outside, if they incorporate several groups, such as the army, political leaders, industrialists, which compete for power and influence. In this sense, these regimes may exhibit
Pluralism (political philosophy) through the involvement of several groups in the political process.Peter Burnham "Totalitarianism"
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. Ed. Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan. Oxford University Press, 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press.
Use of the term
The term
totalitarianismo, employed in the writings of the philosopher
Giovanni Gentile, was popularized in the 20th century by the Italy
fascism under
Benito Mussolini. The original meaning of the word as described by Mussolini and Gentile (G. Gentile & B. Mussolini in "La dottrina del fascismo" 1932) was a society in which the ideology of the state had influence, if not power, over most of its citizens. According to them, thanks to modern technologies like radio and the printing press, which the state could, and probably would, use to spread its ideology, most modern nations would naturally become totalitarian in the above-stated sense.
While originally referring to an 'all-embracing, total state,' the label has been applied to a wide variety of regimes and orders of rule in a critical sense. Isabel Paterson, in
The God of the Machine (1943) used the term in connection with the collectivist societies of Nazi Germany and the
Soviet Union.
Karl Popper, in
The Open Society and Its Enemies (
1945) and
The Poverty of Historicism (1961) developed an influential critique of totalitarianism: in both works, he contrasted the "open society" of
liberal democracy with totalitarianism, and argued that the latter is grounded in the belief that history moves toward an immutable future, in accord with knowable laws. During the
Cold War period, the term gained renewed currency, especially following the publication of
Hannah Arendt's
The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951). Arendt argued that
Nazi and Stalinist regimes were completely new forms of government, and not merely updated versions of the old
tyrannies. According to Arendt, the source of the mass appeal of totalitarian regimes was their ideology, which provided a comforting, single answer to the mysteries of the past, present, and future. For
Nazism, all history is the history of racial struggle; and, for Marxism, all history is the history of class struggle. Once that premise was accepted by the public, all actions of the regime could be justified by appeal to the Law of History or Nature. Dana Richard Villa (2000).
The Cambridge Companion to Hannah Arendt. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521645719 p. 2-3
Cold War-era research
The political scientists Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski were primarily responsible for expanding the usage of the term in university social science and professional research, reformulating it as a paradigm for the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin as well as fascist regimes. For Friedrich and Brzezinski, the defining elements were intended to be taken as a mutually supportive organic entity comprised of the following: an elaborating guiding ideology; single-party state, typically led by a dictator; a system of terror; a monopoly of the means of communication and physical force; and central direction and control of the economy through planned economy. Such regimes had initial origins in the chaos that followed in the wake of the World War I, at which point the sophistication of modern weapons and communications enabled totalitarian movements to consolidate power in Italy,
Germany, and Russia.
Eric Hoffer in his book
The True Believer argues that mass movements like
Communism, Fascism and Nazism had a common trait in picturing Western democracies and their values as decadent, with people "too soft, too pleasure-loving and too selfish" to sacrifice for a higher cause, which for them implies an inner moral and biological decay. He further claims that those movements offered the prospect of a glorious, yet imaginary, future to frustrated people, enabling them to find a refuge from the lack of personal accomplishments in their individual existence. Individual is then assimilated into a compact collective body and "fact-proof screens from reality" are established.Eric Hoffer,
The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, Harper Perennial Modern Classics (2002), ISBN 0060505915, p.61, 163
Criticism and recent work with the concept
In the social sciences, the approach of Friedrich and Brzezinski came under criticism from scholars who argued that the Soviet system, both as a political and a social entity, was in fact better understood in terms of
interest groups, competing elites, or even in social class terms (using the concept of the
nomenklatura as a vehicle for a new ruling class). These critics pointed to evidence of popular support for the regime and widespread dispersion of power, at least in the implementation of policy, among sectoral and regional authorities. For some followers of this 'pluralist' approach, this was evidence of the ability of the regime to adapt to include new demands. However, proponents of the totalitarian model claimed that the failure of the system to survive showed not only its inability to adapt but the mere formality of supposed popular participation. Its proponents do not agree on when the Soviet Union ceased to be describable as totalitarian.
The notion of "post-totalitarianism" was put forward by political scientist Juan Linz . For certain commentators, such as Linz and
Alfred Stepan, the Soviet Union entered a new phase after the abandonment of mass terror on Stalin's death. Discussion of "post-totalitarianism" featured prominently in debates about the reformability and durability of the Soviet system in
comparative politics.
As the Soviet system disintegrated in the late
1980s and early 1990s, opponents of the concept claimed that the transformation of the Soviet Union under Mikhail Gorbachev, and its subsequent sudden collapse, demonstrated that the totalitarian model had little explanatory value for researchers. Several decades earlier, for example,
Bertram Wolfe in 1957 claimed that the Soviet Union faced no challenge or change possible from society at large. He called it a "solid and durable political system dominating a society that has been totally fragmented or atomized," one which will remain "barring explosion from within or battering down from without." Many classic theories of totalitarianism discounted the possibility of such change; however, later theorists not only acknowledged the possibility but in fact encouraged and welcomed it. Any suggestions of the indefinite stability of states labeled totalitarian among proponents of the term were largely discredited when the Soviet Union fell by the wayside.
In recent work,
Slovenian philosopher and critic
Slavoj Zizek has aimed at the concept of totalitarianism itself, claiming that its political usage is purely ideologically-driven. In his collection of five essays "Did somebody say Totalitarianism?", Zizek rethinks the usage of this notion and suggests that it functions as a "tamer of free radicals". In other words, to those political processes that we cannot explain or understand from within the logic of
liberal democracy, we simply disregard by tagging them as totalitarian.
Political usage
While the term fell into disuse during the 1970s among many Soviet specialists, other commentators found the typology not only useful for the purposes of classification but for guiding official policy. In her
1979 essay for
Commentary, "
Dictatorships and Double Standards",
Jeane Kirkpatrick argued that a number of foreign policy implications can be drawn by distinguishing "totalitarian" regimes from autocracy in general. According to Kirkpatrick, typical autocracies are primarily interested in their own survival, and as such have allowed for varying degrees of Wiktionary:autonomy regarding elements of
civil society,
religion, court, and
journalism. On the other hand, under totalitarianism, no individual or institution is autonomous from the state's all-encompassing ideology. Therefore, U.S. policy should distinguish between the two and even grant support, if temporary, to non-totalitarian autocratic governments in order to combat totalitarian movements and promote U.S. interests. Kirkpatrick's influence, particularly as foreign policy adviser and United Nations
ambassador, was essential to the formation of the Reagan administration's foreign policy and her ideas came to be known as the "
Kirkpatrick Doctrine."Jeane Kirkpatrick, "Dictatorships and Double Standards",
Commentary (magazine), October 1979.
See also
Notes
References
- Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1958, new ed. 1966)
- Michel Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, in particular March 7, 1979 course
- Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski, Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (2nd edn 1967)
- Jeane Kirkpatrick, Dictatorships and Double Standards: Rationalism and reason in politics (1982)
- Ewan Murray, Shut Up: Tale of Totalitarianism (2005)
- Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan, Problems of Democratic Consolidation (1996)
- J. L. Talmon, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, (1952)
- John A. Armstrong, The Politics of Totalitarianism (New York: Random House, 1961)
- Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War (1944)
- Slavoj Zizek, Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism? (London: Verso, 2001)
External links
- Dictatorship Watch, putting totalitarianism in perspective
Totalitarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a concept used to describe political systems where a state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life.
totalitarianism
Comments on how to use this site for teachers | for students | About new perspective | Explore the Study ...
Amazon.co.uk: The Origins of Totalitarianism (Harvest Book): Hannah ...
Amazon.co.uk: The Origins of Totalitarianism (Harvest Book): Hannah Arendt: Books ... This item is not eligible for Amazon Prime, but millions of other items are.
totalitarianism - definition of totalitarianism by the Free Online ...
to·tal·i·tar·i·an (t-t l-târ-n) adj. Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control ...
totalitarianism definition |Dictionary.com
noun . 1. the practices and principles of a totalitarian regime. 2. absolute control by the state or a governing branch of a highly centralized institution.
Totalitarianism - MSN Encarta
Totalitarianism, in political science, system of government and ideology in which all social, political, economic, intellectual, cultural, and...
Amazon.co.uk: Anti -Totalitarianism: The Left-wing Case for a ...
Amazon.co.uk: Anti -Totalitarianism: The Left-wing Case for a Neoconservative Foreign Policy: Oliver Kamm: Books
Totalitarianism definition of Totalitarianism in the Free Online ...
totalitarianism (tōtăl'ĭtâr`ēənĭzəm), a modern autocratic government in which the state involves itself in all facets of society, including the daily life of its citizens.
BBC NEWS | Politics | Terror 'is new totalitarianism'
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw says terrorism is the world's greatest threat to democracy. ... Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has described terrorism as the "new totalitarianism" which ...
BBC NEWS | Politics | Terror laws are 'needless totalitarianism'
Parts of planned new laws aimed at dealing with a large-scale terror attack smack of "needless totalitarianism", say the Tories.
