Totalitarianism 3.0

Is there a possibility that the government of nations may fall in the hands of men who teach the most disconsolate of all creeds, that men are but fire flies, and this all is without a father? Is this the way to make man as man an object of respect? Or is it to make murder itself as indifferent as shooting plover, and the extermination of the Rohilla nation as innocent as the swallowing of mites on a morsel of cheese? -- John Adams

Death is the beginning of immortality." -- Maximilien Robespierre

Totalitarianism is almost, but not quite, an exclusively 20^th Century phenomenon. There are a few instances, even in the ancient world, of what one would have to admit are totalitarian regimes. The culture of Sparta, for instance, is unmistakably totalitarian. It was certainly a good deal more than mere tyranny, and incorporated a system that profoundly impacted the human experience, from cradle to grave. It managed to control a subject Helot population ten times its size through systematic institutionalized terror. Plato referred to Sparta as a "timocracy," and identified it as one of the fundamental forms of government that also included oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. But one could say that however one chooses to categorize it, the system we now identify as totalitarianism was extremely rare prior to the last Century.

And another nearly universal characteristic of totalitarianism is the phenomenon of the suicide murderer, or the suicide warrior. The Spartans idealized the suicide stand against the Persians at Thermopyle as the very epitome of their culture, the highest expression of their ideals. And it is not by accident that we find similar elements in the 20^th Century, usually when a movement is either attempting to gain power or is on the verge of losing it. The Japanese Fascists resorted to the Kamikaze, or the "divine wind," even though Japanese culture is probably one of the least "religious" on the planet. According to Everett Carll Ladd "we think it is valid to say of the United States that it is exceptionally religious, and of Japan that it is exceptionally irreligious." And Germany also had its suicide warriors, most notably in what came to be called Project Werewolf, toward the latter end of WWII. So this phenomenon of terrorism/totalitarianism is not religion in the conventional sense.

But it seems that, ironically, the most virulent and world-threatening forms of the malady have coincided with the rise and spread of liberal democracy. I would almost suspect that the mere presence of a system seeking to institutionalize the optimization of liberty gives rise to an opposing ideal that seeks to control every thought and act through terror. And the first manifestation of this ancient rivalry may have been in the epic Peloponnesian Wars between Athens and Sparta. For the sake of convenience we'll call the ancient foreshadowings Totalitarianism 1.0. Examples of it were rare, discontinuous, and difficult to categorize, but there was something more than mere tyranny involved. Each of these examples has a quality that resembles the process by which innocent grasshoppers become a locust swarm.

The end of the 18^th Century saw two great revolutions symbolized by a red, white and blue emblem: one that began in 1776 and the other in 1789. One is identified with the great ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence. The other with "The Justification of the Use of Terror." Throughout the 19^th Century the liberal experiment came to terms with its own inconsistencies, and at Gettysburg the experimental stage ended. With the turn of the 19^th there were many neophyte versions of the liberal society struggling against the ancien regimes of various kinds, and in the turmoil it was often difficult to distinguish between those that valued independence versus those that valued purity. But the course of most of these revolutions followed the roadmap laid down by 1789, not 1776.

And the 20^th Century began with the Dreyfus Affair and soon matured into WWI and the Russian Revolution. The First World War was the "coming of age" for my grandfather's generation, and it left them disillusioned and cynical. The "war to end all wars" not only gave us the mass casualties of Verdun, Chateau Thierry, the Marne, the Argonne, and Gallipoli, but it also saw the use of the first weapons of mass destruction. Of the 1161 WWI veterans listed for the Pennsylvania community of Washington, 80 are listed as "gassed." That is probably an undercount. And as if that weren't enough the battles of WWI were barely winding down when the world experienced the first global pandemic, a catastrophe that ultimately killed 10 times as many people as the war itself. Although not man made, the Influenza Pandemic clearly influenced the Wilsonian optimism with which the US had entered the war. And it is not surprising that many of the men who finally returned were disheartened and cynical. The seeds of Totalitarianism 2.0 that were eventually to bear fruit in the Stalinist and Nazi regimes, fell on ground that had been well prepared, and were fed and nurtured by economic calamities no less destructive than those of the second decade.

Even in the US, where the failed economy was treated with workfare provisions like the CCC, the situation led to a "Politics of Unreason" with distinctly totalitarian characteristics. But in Europe, which undermined a work and social ethic with "the dole," the indigent and unemployed became increasingly isolated, creating what Marie Jahoda and Paul Lazarsfeld called ominously a "shrinking consciousness" in which social awareness and connectedness stopped at the front and back doors, and even the yard seen through the window began to appear alien and threatening to the unemployed worker. Thus, it was no surprise that people famished not only for food and shelter, but society itself, embraced the social context provided by the Nazis and Fascists with a certain delirious abandon. And in the Soviet Union the optimism of the early years of the Revolution had given way by the third decade to the Leviathan of Stalinism, and waves of purges and human enslavement that ultimately dwarfed even the concentration camps of the Nazis. Totalitarianism 2.0 had "matured" from its beginnings in the Counter-Enlightenment into the same two extreme factions that had emerged in the French Revolution: the indulgents and the enragés.

We dealt with the threat of Totalitarianism 2.0 in two very different world wars, one hot and one cold. But a strain of the disease had slipped into the Middle East early in the century, spawning first the Ba'ath movement (a second-rate offspring of the two factions of T 2.0) and a full-fledged Totalitarianism 3.0, in the form of Radical Islamism. Though each of the children had different fathers, anchored in either a sectarian or religious tradition, they all had the same mother: the European Counter-Enlightenment. The same philosophical movement that had inspired Marx, Hitler, Michael Aflaq, and Sayyid Qutb.

Nearly a century and a half ago America fought the bloodiest war in its history to end the practice of chattel slavery. When the guns of Gettysburg, The Wilderness, Antietam and Spotsylvania Courthouse had grown quiet after Appomattox, and chattel slavery was thrown to the top of the ash heap of history, the place it had vacated on the throne of evil was quickly assumed by another, somewhat subtler and greater evil, that had been waiting in the wings since antiquity. We are not fighting a "War on Terrorism," as some now call it. That's a misnomer, because suicide terrorism is not a movement, but simply a method that has always been one of the favorites of totalitarianism either seeking power, or on the verge of losing it. What we are involved in now is but the most recent stage in a war against Liberalism's ancient enemy. And it is far from won.

Comments

[JadeGold]

I'd argue that totalitarianism was actually far more prevalent prior to the 20th Century (Louis XIV of France, John I and Charles I of England, the so-called 'enlightened absolutism' of the Hapsburgs and Katherine the Great, ancient Japan, Asia, and China). But even if we accept totalitarianism as largely a 20th Century construct, it offers nothing in support of your central thesis.

Strongly implied is that totalitarianism is a response to a rise in liberal democracies. Understandably, you stop short of asserting this, though it's pretty plain you'd like to do so. If you had, you'd be guilty of both redefining totalitarianism and ignoring history. Essentially, totalitarianism is a form of government where individual freedoms are virtually nonexistant and that all aspects of an individual's life are subject to the desires/needs/whims of that government. Generally, totalitarian regimes rise out of some kind of political and/or economic stife or upheaval in a country. And totalitarian regimes come to power quite often with overwhelming public support for a promised ideal. A charismatic leader and the will to accomplish a specific goal (or set of goals) are also prerequisites.

Asymmetrical warfare--or your 'suicide murderers'--is not necessarily any more of a universal characteristic of totalitarianism than, say, a blue flag. The use of such tactics are in response to an inability to compete in more conventional forms of warfare.

Frankly, it appears you're trying to give CPR to the already deceased notion that radical (Islamic) fundamentalism occurs in a vacuum.

[Scott (to JadeGold)]

JadeGold:

I'd argue that totalitarianism was actually far more prevalent prior to the 20th Century (Louis XIV of France, John I and Charles I of England, the so-called 'enlightened absolutism' of the Hapsburgs and Katherine the Great, ancient Japan, Asia, and China). But even if we accept totalitarianism as largely a 20th Century construct, it offers nothing in support of your central thesis.

I'd say that those regimes corresponded to the conventional notion of tyranny, rather than totalitarianism. They certainly lacked the "locust quality" as well as the deep institutionalization, of the Spartan Project.

Strongly implied is that totalitarianism is a response to a rise in liberal democracies.

This isn't central to my thesis, and I'm fairly agnostic on it. I merely noticed that there does seem to be a coincidence. But I'm still pretty far from claiming it as a dialectic. I think we have a genuine dilemma here.

And totalitarian regimes come to power quite often with overwhelming public support for a promised ideal. A charismatic leader and the will to accomplish a specific goal (or set of goals) are also prerequisites.

I think you're right on the money about "charisma" except that we need to expand the concept from Weber's notion of a charismatic leader to Gellner's notion of a charismatic society. And I'd also argue that the precipitating cause is as likely to be an opportunity, or belief as a "strife," which the movement often deliberately causes as part of its bid for power. (Hence terrorism as a strategy.)

Asymmetrical warfare--or your 'suicide murderers'--is not necessarily any more of a universal characteristic of totalitarianism than, say, a blue flag. The use of such tactics are in response to an inability to compete in more conventional forms of warfare.

I'm not sure any typology is perfect, but this one holds pretty well. And asymmetric warfare includes a great many strategies that are not suicide terrorism of noncombatants, so you've raised something of a straw man. Indeed, Reinhold Neibuhr argues that some forms of "asymmetric warfare" are justified, though he never makes such a case for the suicide bombing of innocents. But if you want to regard the suicide warrior as an extremely high correlate, I'd accept that.

Frankly, it appears you're trying to give CPR to the already deceased notion that radical (Islamic) fundamentalism occurs in a vacuum.

Actually, I think any religion that lacks a "reformed" component, which serves roughly the same function as the cooling rods in a nuclear reactor, is vulnerable to totalitarian ideology. This applies to the Spanish Phalange as well as much of Islam. But saying people of the faith are vulnerable to the virus is much different than equating the virus with the religion.

Sorry about the mixed metaphors, and thanks for the provocative comments.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

Abject drivel. You lack a clear grasp of the core concepts which you are attempting to describe - liberalism, democracy, totalitarianism. In your credit, you avoid a commonly made error when you note that totalitarianism began with Stalin, and do not relate it to communism. However, you fail to provide one shred of rational evidence for your assertion that Islam represents a form of totalitarianism. The closest support you might have found would be a passing mention to "Mohammedism" in Bertrand Russell's "Practice and Theory of Bolshevism", yet you made no mention of it. Rather, you make some vague assumptions regarding philosophies of 'unfreedom', to paraphrase Orwell. I detect the same bullshit our conservative Right espouses when it claims that al-Qaeda "hates our freedoms", as if anyone but the most purile would believe the notion that people want to kill us because we are "free". My suggestion is to read more, and talk less. Learn the difference between a religion and a political philosophy, then examine how the two interact within the dynamics of international relations.

[Scott (to Emmanuel)]

However, you fail to provide one shred of rational evidence for your assertion that Islam represents a form of totalitarianism.

Possibly because I'm not even remotely suggesting that Islam represents a form of totalitarianism? I am saying that there is a totalitarian movement clothed in religious garb that's attempting to hijack Islam, which is an entirely different thing. And if you're at all familiar with the literature on this topic you'd know that Qutbism conforms pretty closely to some of the foundational metrics of an ideological totalitarian movement, including the mass psychosis as well as a logic-defying Ur-myth and a desire to murder or enslave all those who dissent. (To be fair Qutb, himself, doesn't say this overtly. But then neither did Marx, and in both cases their followers certainly practice it.)

Sounds totalitarian to me.

[Tom]

It can be argued on the basis of the many times that many Islamic men have willingly killed themselves for the sake of their religion. Some religious fanatics twist the words of the Koran into the form of a totalitarianism such as the Al' Queda(pardon my spelling if it is wrong) or other such religious groups.

[wierd]

Me confuzed!!! what tha hell is this page about????? I was just looking for some history info!!!

[molli]

I thought your essay was pretty darn brilliant.

I for one, do not understand how anyone can not understand what you are saying about totalitarianism and how it has mushroomed into a potential absolute totalitarianism in Radical Islamism.

Islam itself is already an all encompassing fascist religion imposing dhimmitude on nonmuslims, while it proscribes all sorts of behavior from when to pray to when to wash and how, and what prayers to say while you wash, ...even imposing the burka on women in labor in some countries...and when you mix that with a dangerous political philosophies you have a very nasty mixture.

This is a fact...or else people just aren't reading their papers. Whole towns are being forced to convert in Africa, convert or die.

And now we see the violence exploding in Europe. Nothing good can come out of that kind of social upheaval.

I see dhimmitude coming to the fair country of France.

[Art]

This is a disgusting distortion of history for the sake of maintaining a demonizable other in the mideast - another example of "How to win friends and influence stupid people." The conflict between the Delian League and Pelopponesian League had as much to do with a clash of ideologies as the innumerable conflicts between Athens and Thebes did; it was a struggle on the part mainly of Corinth and Sparta to throw off an Athenian bit for empire. Soldiers from democratic regimes are quite commonly sent on suicide missions, although they do tend to be less casual about waste of life than tyrannies; neither has anything whatever to do with the suicide bombers of the mideast, who voluntarily engage in guerrilla warfare including suicide missions because they have no other means of fighting. The reference to the "Justification of the Uses of Terror" is a ridiculous attempt to tar the French; there are innumerable real reasons why the French Revolution devolved from the Declaration of the Rights of Man into the Terror, but the author is only interested in leaving the impression of a French cultural flaw vis-a-vis the noble Americans.

On the other hand, it is certainly true that religion can form the basis for "totalitarian" regimes, as we saw with the Taliban. This is not generalizable of Islam, which for most of its history has been a comparatively tolerant religion. Hinduism and Buddhism have at times also been rigidly enforced. By far the most effective totalitarian system that we know of began with Constans' 341 decree of death for all non-Arians (in 390 revised to all non-Athanasians) within the boundaries of the Roman Empire. By 380 they had closed all 28 of Rome's public libraries and destroyed every stick of sculpture in the city along with half of the public architecture; by 500 dissent throughout the Empire had been almost completely eradicated, every copy of Aristotle in Europe had been burned, and the Athanasians enjoyed an almost total monopoly on information. They enforced their ideology with public burnings, and their reign of terror would continue for more than a thousand years.

[Demosophist]

This is a disgusting distortion of history for the sake of maintaining a demonizable other in the mideast - another example of "How to win friends and influence stupid people." The conflict between the Delian League and Pelopponesian League had as much to do with a clash of ideologies as the innumerable conflicts between Athens and Thebes did; it was a struggle on the part mainly of Corinth and Sparta to throw off an Athenian bit for empire.

This is a thin excuse. My contention wasn't that democratic regimes were beyond reproach, but that totalitarian ones have certain "signatures." That remains true, in spite of the fact that democratic regimes sometimes launch what you term "suicide missions" (although what they mean by that term is that they're simply very dangerous). I have another post on this topic about a confrontation within the larger battle of Spottsylvania Courthouse about "The Bloody Angle" during the Civil War, which was especiaaly murderous. Nonetheless the people who participated in that encounter still believed, going in, that they'd in all liklihood survive. Those who participated in Operation Werewulf or in the Kamikazi flights had no such expectation because the whole point was suicide, and even if they'd prevailed against their enemey the fact that they'd survived would have been seen as failure. Their death was actually at least as important as the defeat of the enemy, if not more so.

So no, it's not a distortion of history, but a verifiable insight into history. And if you had a lick of sense you wouldn't waste a minute defending it anyway. Bottom line: You've got no idea what you're talking about.

This is not generalizable of Islam, which for most of its history has been a comparatively tolerant religion.

Well, not so much actually. Tolerant only in comparison to intolerant medieval Christianity, but that's not exactly grounds for rejoicing. The Sharia has never, actually, foresworn chattel slavery, for instance. It continues to be justified under certain conditions.

So, perhaps Islam was "tolerant" by medieval standards, but hardly by any modern standard that makes sense.