Talk:Totalitarianism/Archive 1

message: How about a page on the criticisms and warnings against Totalitarianism? Totalitarianism/Criticisms, perhaps. Tzartzam 12:12 Sep 7, 2002 (UTC)
:Pages with slashes in the middle are a relic of an older implementation of the wiki software, as I understand it, and are to be avoided these days. If the subject wanted a page of its own, it would be something like Criticisms of totalitarianism, but really, I think it may as well go on this page under a separate heading.
::Well, maybe I'll start a criticisms and warnings title, and we could take it from there. George Orwell would be a good start...  -- Tzartzam
:By the way, do I understand correctly that you're going to destroy the system from the inside? ;-) --Camembert
::Haha! You've been reading my livejournal! Hm. Well, probably not. But, y'know, gotta fight somehow...  -- Tzartzam
I think this business of Hitler rising to power democratically is very debatable. The Nazis never got a majority of the vote. Hitler was appointed chancellor through a variety of secret deals with and betrayals of other conservatives. The 32  election was rife with riots and intimidation by the stormtroopers. Finally, the mechanism that gave the Nazis power was ruling by decree, an aspect of the German system that is hard to defend as "democracy".  It can be argued that Hitler came to power in large part because Germany was not democratic enough, and did not have deep democratic traditions, having retained aristocratic rule longer than most other major European powers. I think the paragraph should either be deleted, or a fuller discussion of the rise of Hitler inserted. I favor the former, as I think the latter too much a digression.
Hieronymous 05:07, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: The terms totalitarian democracy and totalitarian republic have also been used to classify a different style of totalitarian rule. In these regimes, the government is generally popular (at least at the beginning), and the ideological justification of the state comes on behalf of the people. Hitler's initially-democratically-elected regime of Nazi totalitarianism is often used as an example of a totalitarian democracy.
I've never heard of these terms. I have, however heard the claim that "Hitler came to power democratically." Since I'm bewildered by the prospect that any people would vote to give up their freedom, I doubt that this could be true. Historian William Sheridan Allen says it's not true.
Let's label the claim as a POV, or leave it out. --Uncle Ed 21:23, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old talk 

message: "Totalitarianism is any political system in which a citizen is totally subject to a governing authority in all aspects of day-to-day life."
I can't agree with the very basis of this article. Though am unwilling to change it because of modern usage and the divergent consensus thus far so distant from the delvings into which I've found the word to be used earliest. Though I believe it should be mentioned for people who are willing to look up the original context of the word usage in Fascist Italy, that it was one of 'a totality reifying the state,' and nothing to do with authoritarianism. That Totalitarian meant Total-Authoritarian was only used pejoratively, those who called themselves by it meant nothing of authority in it. It was rather a Syndicalist type conception of 'conforming to the proletariat' by their 'total conception' of social life by which it reflected in their actions to form the state. Not that the state was an entity dictating or administering laws about every aspect of living, but every aspect of living built up was what had to be recognized as the 'state' entity cohesively, i.e. 'Totally.' This is how it was seen by the Italian Fascists as intrinsic about themselves, and not used by the Nazis, Falangists or Communists who didn't adhere to such Actual Idealism. In this context also the Italian Fascist system alone can be applied to the word historically whereas none of the other regimes commonly considered do fit it. Which quite the opposite as the article's current definition, where it's postulation now is opposite to the many regime's own self-classification. Nagelfar 11:18, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  the word "Totalitarian" did not originally imply coercion. 

message: In response to Trey Stone, on the subject of measuring totalitarianism, the first paragraph correctly lists the definition of totalitarianism. It is about control of "every aspect" of everyday life. It is not just about "indoctrination" and "political imprisonment." The imprisonment rate is a very fair measure of the degree to which the state finds itself needing to intervene in all the aspects of life total and is hence very relevant to the theory of totalitarianism. Stone's point may be relevant somewhere in the Wikipedia, just not on this page about totalitarianism. 
Besides which, thanks in part to the theory of "totalitarianism," many would question what is "political imprisonment" in one context and not supposedly in another. That would be a good question for a page on political prisoners.
198.165.90.75 07:20, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Measuring totalitarianism 

message: I am afraid the USSR section is one good piece of propaganda or incompetency: it mixes true statements with false ones. I agree that this example is important, but it is necessary to weed it out severely. I will try to do this piecesise. Mikkalai 01:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  False and misleading: incompenent or propaganda 

message: Irrelevant to the definition of totaliarianism. Removed. Mikkalai 01:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What you say is true, but it is not what was removed. Mikkalai 02:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign affairs (USSR) 

message: The regime maintained close relationships on a world wide basis with revolutionary parties continuing support for an international movement to supplant capitalism with communism. It saw itself as subject to attack by developed capitalist countries and maintained massive defensive forces over many decades in anticipation of war. 
It is particularly inappropriate to remove the reference information. The actual language in the reference (which is actually a definition of Stalinism) reads, "Foreign affairs Stalin and his successors perceived the Soviet Union as being surrounded by enemies. This led to isolation, and arms build-up, and the cultivation of an 'enemy image' of the West." I believe this consciousness of being "at war" with capitalism explains much about the nature of Soviet totalitarianism, as the Nazi notion of being at war with Zionism explains much in that case. Because they are in a state of war there is the danger of spies and sabotage by foreign powers, etc. And the need to control information, dissent, travel, etc. It is in a sense the engine that drives the rest. Fred Bauder 02:05, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
:What you say is true, but it is not what was removed. Mikkalai 02:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign affairs 

message: I have restored referenced information regarding repression of nationalities. This is an important part of the totalitarian nature of the Soviet Union. The original language in the source reads, "Nationalities The Soviet Union was a centralized, Russified state. Stalin left his mark even before he became supreme leader: as nationalities commissar under Lenin, he established the basic national frontiers within the Soviet state. Later he incorporated the three Baltic republics of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, plus Western Ukraine (taken from Poland) and Moldavia (taken from Romania). After the war he deported whole nations from their homelands for alleged collaboration with the Germans; these included Crimean Tatars, Meskhetian Turks and ethnic Germans." I think there are some inadequacies in this information, especially with time frame. But it belongs in the article as this is one of the defining characteristics of Soviet totalitarian according to those who have that viewpoint.
Again, what you wrote right now is correct, but this is not what was removed.
Removed:
:Nationalities which resisted were subject to repression which in the early years of the regime included mass imprisonment and deportation.
I personally wrote a number of artciels about repressions of nationalities. I can assure you, their repressions have nothing to do with "resistance to russifiation". I may be wrong, but I will not allow this phrase without original material. 
I already see that the book used to create this section was written by underinformed person. For example, the collaboration was far from being  "alleged".  Mikkalai 02:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repression of nationalities 

message: The articles provided on the wikipedia web site strangely ignore the mention of so many dictatorships present in the world today.such as the de facto totalitarian dictator {Gadafi} in libya and {al assad} in syria.
We are unable to achieve adequate treatment of Stalin and Hitler, minor characters will just have to wait. Fred Bauder 01:33, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
I have added the Apartheid system of the former racist regime of South Africa because (1) by the criterion of an attempt to re-shape human relationships, it is totalitarian, (2) it had a well-defined ideology, (3) it made extensive use of media as an outlet of propaganda, (4) that it systematically repressed and exploited large numbers of people for purposes of re-shaping society contrary to the obvious interests of most of its subjects, (5) it consistently exploited real and imagined dangers of horrific enemies, and (6) that its demise was generally recognized in much the same manner as the demise of other totalitarian (especially Communist) states. 
Apartheid depended upon single-party domination that the few eligible voters (whites only, of course) had no means of contesting. The racist Nationalist Party was assured of overwhelming majorities in the parliament that prevented any political change not to its liking. It did not need any personality cult as a basis of power, but the personality cult proved unnecessary. 
The Apartheid system, in my opinion, merits inclusion due to its durability (roughly the same as communist states in central and southeastern Europe), its formulation of an anti-democratic ideology, and its distinctiveness as a form of tyranny for many of its subjects. South Africa also had and has a fairly large population, as well as regional importance.--66.231.38.91 19:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ignored dictators 

message: The article makes numerous references to the usage of the term by unnamed neoconservatives, but is not engaged in the classic literature on this concept is built by Arendt, Brzezinski, Soper, et al., aside from just briefly mentioning Arendt in the intro. This problem will need to be corrected over time if this is to become a useful encyclopedic entry. 172 17:53, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: This text was in Mind control, but does not belong there. See if you can use this here.
* Totalitarian governments use propaganda repression of freedom of speech to regiment their population. Repression can range from simple censorship through character assassination to threats of outright state-sponsored murder. Stalin's purges offer examples.
--Zappaz 04:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text from [[Mind control]] 

message: I deleted this:
:In the case of the Soviet Union, efforts to reform the system to strengthen its economic base under Gorbachev weakened the totalitarian aspects of the Soviet Union into an authoritarianism more vulnerable to internal pressures; in the former socialist regimes of central and southeastern Europe, the stability of communist régimes depended upon military support from the Soviet Union that never came to the aid of communist rulers.
explanation: this doesn't make any sense.
#the reform was not intended to strengthen its economic base. Not to mention that even if it did, it brilliantly succeeded to achieve just the opposite result. In fact, the capital investments dropped during Gorbachev's rule and the planned Union-wide modernisation program was not implemented.
#the hypostasing. You pretend that "weakened the totalitarian aspects of the Soviet Union into an authoritarianism" makes any sense, while it doesn't. What totalitarian aspects? Do you have any references to back up this nonsensical claim?
#it's all too vague.
#stability didn't depend on military support.
#the regime didn't explode from within. The influence of the cold war enemies (the United States, first of all), including the support to the internal opposition (dissidents, etc.) was very significant.
Overall, it's a simplification that tosses around some vague terms and doesn't really make sense. It should have no place in the article, until someone can clarify it and back up with any sources. Paranoid 22:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm leaving for a little while (and so will not be editing anything for about a week if I do decide to), so I'll give my first thoughts:
*I didn't write that portion, so I'm not sure who the "you" is addressing.  In fact, I believe that part was there long before I even touched this article.
*It does make sense, however it is vague.  The connection to the intentions of glasnost and perestroika to totalitarian "devolution" (if you will) could be made much more explicitly, but it isn't complete nonsense.  The question of economic targets could be verified but is mostly common sense--Gorbachev was aware of the "collapse" of already faulty schemes of food production, health care, etc. and wished that his attempt at reforms, rather than being merely a humanitarian gesture of goodwill, would lead to economic expansion and more resources for e.g. military expenditures.  Whether it was a success is completely irrelevant.  He also didn't intend for the whole country to collapse either.
*From my brief skimming, the connection between the paragraphs sounds a bit strange with it removed, so at the very least it needs tidied by someone a bit more anal than I often bother to be.  Also even "explosion from within" itself sounds rather odd.
*"stability didn't depend on military support" is a flat out lie, particularly (and specifically) in regard to East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Poland, in that order.  If the USSR was not at the backdoor and plenty willing to send troops and supplies, the regimes would have collapsed long before the end of their last decade.
*It would be prudent to mention the external support for dissident groups, etc., but this didn't change the fact that internal forces removed the regime, not war from outside. --TJive 22:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  deletion of some text 

message: I deleted the (sloppy) reference to a few movements and governments in Eastern Europe because they were either too vague or inaccurate.  The Chetniks were not fascists, and while Hungary experienced Nazi occupation and satellization and Romania quasi-Iron Guard rule, it was not to any significant extent (and of very little significance altogether) as to be considered necessarily totalitarian.  If they are to be listed, it should be only in a more comprehensive list of governments which might be considered totalitarian.  --TJive 13:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Eastern European regimes