Question: What ideology did Stalinist totalitarianism develop out of?
About the article "October Revolution", section "Western historiography".

Candidate passages:
 in History.
The 20th century did appear to witness what many theorists have seen as the end of the battles of political ideology, with the political model of liberal democracy coming out on top.
Indeed, political scientists, including Francis Fukuyama, hailed the fall of the Soviet Union as the "end of history" in which the ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy the final form of human government."
(See End of History and the Last Man)In the view of the United States Factor, this "end of history" is made possible only because the USA was in a unique space economically, geographically, politically, and militarily throughout the 20th century that made it possible for the United States to "rescue" the Old World powers from the threat of totalitarianism.
These menaces included both right wing totalitarian regimes, such as Nazism, as well as left wing totalitarianism—better known as Soviet-era Communism.
(See State ideology of the Soviet Union)Though Gat acknowledges that the victory of democracy over totalitarianism was not necessarily "preordained" at the outset of either World War, he goes on to remark that the sheer fact that the USA existed gave liberal democracies their "edge" in the battle against totalitarian regimes.
This was achieved mainly by the USA's contributions to the European Allies' war efforts from a distant location that was geographically large and politically united. 
One of the first to use the term "totalitarianism" in the English language was the Austrian writer Franz Borkenau in his 1938 book "The Communist International", in which he commented that it more united the Soviet and German dictatorships than divided them.
Syngman Rhee, the first president of Korea, has used the term "totalitarianism" in his book "Japan Inside Out"(1941) to categorize the Japanese rule over many Asian nations against the democratic world, where individuals are of greater importance than the society itself.
Isabel Paterson, in "The God of the Machine" (1943), used the term in connection with the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.F.A.
Hayek helped develop the idea of totalitarianism in his classic defense of economic competition "The Road to Serfdom" (1944).
In his Introduction, Hayek contrasts Western Anglo values with Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler, stating that "the conflict between the National-Socialist "Right" and the "Left" in Germany is the kind of conflict that will always arise between rival socialist factions".
He later conflates "Germany, Italy and Russia" going on to say that "the history of these countries in the years before the rise of the totalitarian system showed few features with which we are not familiar" (Chapter 1, The Abandoned Road).
Nautica carcerenyDuring a 1945 lecture series entitled "The Soviet Impact on the Western World" (published as a book in 1946), the pro-Soviet British historian E. H. Carr claimed that "The trend away from individualism and towards totalitarianism is everywhere unmistakable", and that Marxism-Leninism was much the most successful type of totalitarianism, as proved by Soviet industrial growth and the Red Army's role in defeating Germany.
Only the "blind and incurable" could ignore the trend towards totalitarianism, said Carr.
Karl Popper, in "The Open Society and Its Enemies" (1945) and "The Poverty of Historicism" (1961), articulated 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 accordance with knowable laws.
In "The Origins of Totalitarianism", Hannah Arendt argued that Nazi and State communist regimes were 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 is their ideology, which provides a comforting, single answer to the mysteries of the past, present, and future.
For Nazism, all history is the history of race struggle; and, for Marxism, all history is the history of class struggle.
Once that premise is accepted, all actions of the state can be justified by appeal to Nature or the Law of History, justifying their establishment of authoritarian state apparatus.
In addition to Arendt, many scholars from a variety of academic backgrounds and ideological positions have closely examined totalitarianism.
Among the most noted commentators on totalitarianism are Raymond Aron, Lawrence Aronsen, Franz Borkenau, Karl Dietrich Bracher, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Conquest, Carl Joachim Friedrich, Eckhard Jesse, Leopold Labedz, Walter Laqueur, Claude Lefort, Juan Linz, Richard Löwenthal, Karl Popper, Richard Pipes, Leonard Schapiro, and Adam Ulam.
Each one of these describes totalitarianism in slightly different ways.
They all agree, however, that totalitarianism seeks to mobilize entire populations in support of an official state ideology, and is intolerant of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, entailing repression or state control of business, labour unions, churches or political parties. 
The LSP ideology was based on the methodology of dialectical materialism, the theory of Marxism and contemporary social science.
It believed that Socialists should unambiguously disassociate from Stalinist and totalitarian theories and practice.
LSP propagated what it believed to be the new 21st century socialism. 
The charter and the official program of the BDJ reveal few details about the actual political motivations of the group.
Deliberately any extreme right-wing ideology was kept out.
The political guidelines of day-to-day politics were collected in the confidential, 78 pages long, memorandum "Bürger und Partisan" (Citizen and Partisan) by Paul Lüth.
According to Lüth the world was in a "defense war against totalitarianism". 
When Varga introduced the theory, orthodox Stalinist economists attacked it as incompatible with the doctrine that state planning was a feature only of socialism, and that "under capitalism anarchy of production reigns.
"Critics of the stamocap theory (e.g., Ernest Mandel and Leo Kofler) claimed that:  stamocap theory wrongly implied that the state could somehow "overrule" inter-capitalist competition, the laws of motion of capitalism and market forces generally, supposedly cancelling out the operation of the law of value.
stamocap theory lacked any sophisticated account of the "class basis" of the state, and the real linkages between governments and elites.
It postulated a monolithic structure of domination which in reality did not exist in that way.
stamocap theory failed to explain the rise of neo-liberal ideology in the business class, which claims precisely that an important social goal should be a "reduction" of the state's influence in the economy.
stamocap theory failed to show clearly what the difference was between a "socialist" state and a "bourgeois" state, except that in a socialist state, the Communist Party (or, rather, its central committee) played the leading political role.
In that case, the "class-content" of the state itself was defined purely in terms of the policy of the ruling political party (or its central committee).