![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Because of its loose structure and unfocused narrative, this has long been a mess off "original research" and off-topic commentary. I've replaced it with a comprehensive, if brief, new article focused and organized enough to allow further expansion, so long as it is engaged in the core scholarly literature on the subject. I expect and welcome feedback. 172 21:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
There are currently two main differences to deal with, as the remainder may come down to style. The definition in terms of typology is clearly the standout, and there is also the more minor issue of the basic proviso to paragraph 3. Last things first. The bald proposition that the involvement of the military and captains of industry in the political process may mean that totalitarian regimes are not "truly" totalitarian must have a rider. Something which acknowledges that the mere involvement of elites in the political process does not mean that we are not dealing with a totalitarian regime. The very lack of internal and external transparency also illustrates that a "monolithic" appearance is telling in itself. Ok, typologies. How does having the meaning defined in terms of "ideal types" assist the general readership and the overall aims of the project (also note WP:Lead)? Why should anyone need to read and understand independent subject matter in order to digest the definition? Can we please have the comments of others on this point so that we achieve consensus? 172, may we both hold off on further edits on this point until a consensus is reached. Obey 04:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
And from WP:Lead :-
The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see Wikipedia:Summary style and news style). The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic unless that definition is implied by the title (such as 'History of …' and similar titles).
To get a better understanding of what a great lead section should do, the perfect article: "Begins with a definition or clear description of the subject at hand. This is made as absolutely clear to the nonspecialist as the subject matter itself will allow. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to codify human knowledge in a way that is most accessible to the most people, and this demands clear descriptions of what the subject matter is about. So we aren't just dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word—we are eased into it."
And on accessibility (same guideline) :-
In general, specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be succintly defined within the introduction.
172, you seem insistent that this definition must remain as is. Do you see no better or more useful definition? And for everyone else, is it really the umabiguous consensus view to maintain the definition of "totalitarianism" as a "typology"? If nothing else, can this be the view, given the style guidelines? Obey 09:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
specify. what would be the significance other than some "bad guy" no longer being premier
I have no idea what sort of argument you are attempting to attribute to me here. The typical distinction made in Soviet policy occurs either immediately upon Stalin's death or after Khrushchev's speech in 1956 (or specifically the release of many gulag prisoners and so on). I don't see that the distinction is particularly necessary to make here, so it is simply shorted to "after the premiership of Stalin", which is literally true in any such case. -- TJive 06:06, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I'm surprised to see no mention of Karl Popper on this page. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Cut from intro, first sentence:
I clicked on 'typology' and it didn't help me understand anything. Maybe the problem is that we're trying to force an adjective into a noun's clothing.
Kirkpatrick classified regimes as "totalitarian" based on certain criteria. But in order to fit in with the usual scheme, we have to use the noun form:
Looks like "totalitarian" means "trying to control every aspect of society". But there is no political ideology that is specificaly devoted to controlling every aspect of society. This desire or practice of being hyper-controlling is a feature or property - a means toward an end.
Maybe that's why it's so hard to swallow as a concept.
The other difficulty is that Kirkpatrick and others use it to condemn Communists and Nazis alike (even though supporters of both of these WW2 enemies claim to be sooooo different). We don't hear much from Nazis these days; Europe won't even let them talk. But Communists go to great lengths to portray themselves as the good guys and Nazis as the great enemy of mankind; but they also criticize the West and democracy and especially the United States. It's pretty tangled up.
Are we Wikipedians up to the task of untangling it all? Uncle Ed 17:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I reinserted the term "typology." To Ed Poor, if the Wikipedia entry did not help clear things up, I suggest going beyond Wikipedia to searches of databases of academic journals, or even just Google. Lots of information can be found readily if you to a search for both the terms typology and totalitarianism. A typology, by the way, is sometimes called a taxonomy. In socail sciences a typology is a term for the classicfication of social phenomena. 172 | Talk 16:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
This article should be about what important academics and politicians call "totalitarian" societies. Whether these take the form of states or regimes - and whether the term "totalitarianism" refers to an ideology or a degree of control should of course be mentioned in the article, particularly if there is some dispute about this.
If there are writers and others (outside of Wikipedia) who object to the marriage of fascism and communism, let's say so in the article. Who opposes the definition of "totalitarianism" which lumps Hitler and Stalin together? Supporters of Stalin, maybe? Fine: say so in the article.
But Kirkpatrick, Popper and others use the term.
Calling totalitarianism a "typology" is bewildering, and we should notbewilder our readers. Please stop changing the article to say that totalitarianism is a typology. And no fair, referring you fellow contributors to a good library. You and I are not debating here, 172. We are supposed to working together to craft a useful and simple article for Wikipedia's readers. If a sophisticated man like me can't understand it - and if you can't explain it - then it's probably nonsense.
None of us is allowed to impose their own ideas. Not Ed Poor, not 172, not any of us volunteers. We are only allowed to describe the concepts and terms used by the world outside Wikipedia. Uncle Ed 17:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Our article now speaks of Friedrich and Brzezinski as originating the critique of Stalinism as "totalitarian", but that is already there in Popper and Arendt. -- 00:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting my typo-- more evidence that my eyes keep getting worse and worse. 172 | Talk 09:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
This article lists some references, but gives no indication which facts are cited to which references. Some of the purported references look very unlikely to me. George Orwell's, 1984 is a work of fiction, and is not explicitly mentioned in the article, so how could it have been a reference? Joost A. M. Meerloo, M.D, The Rape of the Mind available on line appears to be a book on brainwashing, not particularly on totalitarianism: for what, precisely is it a reference? Similarly, while we treat the views of J. L. Talmon's The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy at totalitarian democracy, his views are hardly mainstream. For what was he used as a reference? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
A totalitarian state would not necessarily prohibit religion, if the religion were a vehicle for the state's ideology. Freedom of religion would of course be prohibited, but participation in a state religion might be compulsory. Therefore, I have added the word "non-conforming" to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.11.167.210 ( talk • contribs) 6 March 2006.
In a series of revisions, I removed, User:Obey restored, and then I removed again this sentence in the intro commenting on criticisms of the explanatory power of the concept of totalitarianism: "Others respond that the very absence of transparency and the existence of an oligarchy tend to imply the existence of a totalitarian state." I have no idea who's making this 'response.' I'm pretty familiar with the academic literature on the subject; so I doubt that I'm simply unfamiliar with a common argument, which the sentence is purportedly representing. Moreover, simply put, I doubt that it's a argument put forward by a specialist because it is hopelessly incoherent. The "the very absence of transparency and the existence of an oligarchy" does not "imply" totalitarianism. Elements of "oligarchy"-- an ancient concept dating back to Aristotle-- are not exclusive to any one type of political system. The sentence is likely (bad) "original research."
I urge other editors to be vigilant of the insertion of original research here. This article, like many articles on politics in Wikipedia, can be a magnet for original research because people are often familiar with political concepts, and have strong opinions on them, while not being too familiar with scholarly definitions of terms. 172 | Talk 09:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The new sentence is neither here nor there: However, the mere fact that such elites participate in the political process does not exclude the possibility of a totalitarian regime. I have no idea who's making that claim, or who's suggesting otherwise. 172 | Talk 09:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Obey's change to the first paragraph is also particularly problematic: The paragraph closes by stating the following: In political science, especially in comparative politics, the term is a typology used to describe modern regimes with such characteristics. This sentence presupposes the historical reality of totalitarianism. Yet totalitarianism remains a contested concept. I restored the original wording, which is carefully worded to avoid making implict POV statements. 172 | Talk 09:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Such a warm embrace after a wikibreak. Before starting afresh, your initial comments are hardly "critical feedback" and what comes off as snide arrogance in your second batch of comments may be that tone thing again. And a minor point: elites references "army, political leaders, industrialist". But leaving all of this aside, we need to reexamine your insistence on casting the definition primairly in terms of typologies. The discussion has already been carried on by others above and I will try to restart that discussion there so that we are finished with this other irrelevancy. Obey 09:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
This article is for the well-educated layman, but should also be accessible to high-school and college students. Expressions like "ideal type" and "typology" obscure the discussion.
If the point of critics of the term is that it is WRONG to apply the term "totalitarianism" to regimes which these critics endorse - on the grounds that the term carries an unfairly negative connotation, then the article should simply register that objection. Many advocates of Communism bristle (or worse!) whenever parallels are drawn between the all-encompassing state control of everyday life in Communist regimes (like the USSR) and Fascist regimes (like Nazi Germany). Well, that's their Point Of View, and we should describe it.
The two most commonly heard points that writers (outside Wikipedia, I mean) assert about "totalitarianism" are:
Our challenge in this article is not to reconcile thest two points of view, and certainly not to endorse one over the other. We should describe each POV accurately and attribute it to its proponents. -- Uncle Ed 13:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. A good faith heads up on the typology thing: I've RFCd again on the talk page. My self-evident agenda is to recast the definition primarily in something other than the non-accessible (as I say) "typologies". Is there room for compromise? If you're amenable, any suggestions? What about the second part of the lead of my last effort? Can that be redrafted so we have general definition first, immediately followed by a redrafted reference to typologies? Would you at least agree that an improved, self-contained definition is possible? Or do you feel that we must have "(T) is a typology employed by political scientists..."? I will also be tweaking that last paragraph on monoliths etc but I'm hoping that this will be less controversial. Constructive dialogue may yet work for us... Obey 09:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
You wrote:
I need to know what you mean by this. If you mean that the use of the term "totalitarianism" is contested, then we can all help each other (and our readers) by defining precisely how each of several various political scientists or other writers use the term.
If you mean that there is a debate over whether totalitarian regimes (i.e., all-encompassing, hyper-controlling dictatorships) are GOOD or BAD for the people, then you're on solid editorial ground. There is indeed a well-known and age-old debate over this very point, with dozens or hundreds of answers to the questions of how much control a state should exert over its people and which aspects of should come under its control.
Would you please help me and Obey by agreeing to separate the two questions?
I'm sure we can work in the concept of "typology" somewhere! ;-) -- Uncle Ed 13:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
172, you cut the 2 sections above from your talk page with the comment that they belong here at talk:Totalitarianism (these posts belong on the article talk page [1]). I have pasted them, assuming (in good faith) that you meant to do so yourself.
But your reversion of my edits lacks sufficient explanation. Please dialogue with us on the above points before proceeding further. -- Uncle Ed 16:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Your edits are riddled with inaccuracies. This is the most glaring: Usage note: some scholars object to the term totalitarianism as a neologism or "typology" (see ideal type) and refuse to apply it to fascism or Communism. A typology is not necessarily a neologism. In particular the term "totalitarianism" is so well established that it is by now not a neologism. And it is not criticism to call something a typology! 172 | Talk 17:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The entire article seems like an argument for the point of view that:
There is very little information about totalitarian regimes, such as fascism under Mussolini and Hitler or Communism in many places. -- Uncle Ed 20:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
No, it is not. I'm baffled about how you seem to be extrapolating by virtue of the usage of the term "typology." As for more information on the history, this is a wiki. Click on the hyperlinks and go to relevant articles on the regimes discussed in this article. 172 | Talk 05:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I find the current header that 172 put up, which does not discuss "means" until a later paragraph and documents the term more than the concept, to be a more encyclopedia-like coverage of the subject. -- Improv 13:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
172 reverted ALL my changes indiscriminately saying Not this again. User:Ed Poor, we already thoroughly discussed this matter in his edit summary. [] However, I have not had answers to any of my questions. He has merely responding by saying that he already answered me. I still don't understand why "typology" is so important as to require mention in the first sentence of the article. And I have other questions.
172, please discuss your large reversions before making them. -- Uncle Ed 14:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Ed Poor, try to keep you comments under the same section header for a change. It's pointless to be carrying out the same conversation at once under multiple headings. 172 | Talk 19:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I suggest we divide the article into parts describing those scholars or others who advocate the use of the term, from those who criticize the term as useless, easily misapplied, etc.
Before my current round of edits, the article seemed to be almost entirely focused on asserting that the terms "totalitarian" and "totalitarianism" are useless, impractical and (even hinted that they were) mere propanganda terms.
I'd like to get away from this hinting and marginalizations and get the real issue out in the open.
Some politicians and intellectuals (group #1) find the term useful. They apply it to the "totalitarian twins" of Fascism and Communism, finding several significant aspects in both types of dictatorship.
Labeling it a "typology" or "ideal type" in the first sentence supports the POV that group #1 is incorrect but without identifying the sources (group #2) who dispute the first group's point of view. (If the second group has only one member, i.e. user:172, then I'm not sure we should mention his views at all; but I assume good faith.)
Please help me balance the article between those who find "totalitarianism" a useful term (or concept) and those who (for whatever various reasons) do not. And please supply sources for all advocates of either point of view - don't simply "revert because we already discussed it or came to consensus" because this is a new point which has NOT been discussed yet. -- Uncle Ed 14:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you acknowledging that there is a dispute (in academia or elsewhere) over the usefulness or applicability of the term "totalitarianism"? If so, please help me rewrite the article to reflect the existence of this dispute. -- Uncle Ed 15:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps your missing my point because I've stated it incompletely. I'm saying the article should be about totalitarian goverments. How they come to power and keep power. What motivates dictatorships and ruling classes to controll the masses so minutely. What life is like in such countries.
The article should not be 90% about the claims by "some" (and not even identified) that the term "totalitarianism" is misused or that the concept of "totalitarianism" is (as you hint) some kind of made-up thing with no real application.
If your point is that "totalitarianism" is a bad term or useless concept, you need to provide a source for this.
If you think it's a useful concept and that there is some value in labelling the term a "typology", please note (BEFORE your next mass revert) that both terms - "typology" and ideal type - are in the intro. -- Uncle Ed 19:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Unsourced claims:
Can you help me find a source for this? Which critics? And which "characteristics"?
Who argues that a dictatorship is "not as monolithic as it appears" if it has internal conflicts between power groups? Does this mean that it doesn't "regulate nearly every aspect of public and private behavior"? If so, who says so? And what examples do they give? -- Uncle Ed 15:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Edgar Sims is a relatively obsure figure. His quotation doesn't belong in the intro. In the intro we are best suited in starting with the major figures and working our way down to less relevant material. 172 | Talk 19:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I had an illuminating discussion on IRC last night with someone who insisted that "Communism" hadn't killed anybody. What he meant was that the concept itself took no action, and as far as that goes he was right. If you fall off a building, Newtons discovery, i.e., the Law of gravitation, is not what kills you; gravity kills you (by slamming you into the ground with more kinetic energy than you can absorb.
Kids, don't try this at home. If you think gravity is safe because "a concept can't hurt you" ...
This article should be about totalitarian governments and the ideologies which motivate them (or which they teach their subjects), just as the article on Dictatorship is about dictatorships. Every article about forms of government should be about the governments which assume those forms. If we can add a bit about the theory of how these forms might work in the ideal, so much the better. And we're always interested in etymology, i.e., how the terms used to describe these forms of governments came into use or fell into disuse.
I know that some people don't like to have their favorite form of government called "totalitarian". We should probably mention this distaste for the label in the article. In particular, leftists hate any association between Communism and Fascism, and there's at least one prominent intellectual (or politician) who brands these as "totalitarian twins". This is like the dispute over whether Nazism was ever really "socialist".
Instead of reverting, why not say what is wrong with even one of my contributions? I don't hit the target every time, but surely not all of my edits were incorrect. Tell me where this article needs to go, and what improvements you suggest. -- Uncle Ed 16:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, you have taken back your claim that I removed the term "typology" and you want Ed Sims moved out of the intro. I'm happy with both of these. Kirkpatrick and Arendt are better known scholars.
Your point about using Wikipedia to verify Wikipedia is well taken. Let's get more material into this encyclopedia. There's a whole bunch of stuff out there in books - only some of which can be found on the web. -- Uncle Ed 18:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Ed Poor, you keep on reverting back to your same flawed version, despite appearing to change your tune on the talk page. I really recommend that you take a break from this article. Your intentions are probably good. But you're not helping here. 172 | Talk 18:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Look, I've taught classes on history of the political theory. Frankly, I know what I'm doing if I'm making reversions here, even if I may be slow in posting explanations on the talk page right away. Now, give me a few minutes to come up with a more detailed response. I keep on getting into edit conflicts with you. You're editing at a pace that's much faster than the one I'm used to. (I'm not a long-time computer programmer as you are. I work slowly online. The process of using a computer itself is relatively new to me.) 172 | Talk 18:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
First, I wish you would refrain from removing the discussion of the term in terms of a typology in the lead sentence for reasons Improv and I already relayed to you. Also, I don't understand your insistence on moving down the pedagogical reference to comparative politics. The pedagogy is essential if we are to start this article off by solidly anchoring it in an academic discourse. Second, stop moving the paragraph detailing the criticisms of the explanatory power of the concept outside the intro. That paragraph is particularly important, as it discusses a leading current in political science literature responding to the theorists of totalitarianism writing in the 1950s and early 1960s. Third, I do not see the point of your new "communism and fascism" section. There is already a section discussing the work of theorists such as Arendt who use the concept to describe both fascist and communist regimes. The section is redundant. 172 | Talk 18:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. As we are all fairly long-term editors, we should be able to do better than we have in working together on this article. -- Improv 14:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Recovery from edit conflict:
I read the intro to Ideal type again today, and accordingly modifed the intro to Totalitarianism. I suggest we review some major examples of countries labelled "totalitarian" and show (in the article) how they do and do not match the definition.
I suppose the reason that 172 kept reverting all my changes to his preferred version, was that he felt that without an early and prominent mention of the words "typology" or "ideal type", readers might get the impression that all governments deemed "totalitarian" were despotic to the same degree. Yugoslavia was not nearly as controlling as North Korea is, for example. And not every Fascist country had an Iron Curtain keeping people in and journalists out.
Dictatorships in general vary in the degree to which they suppress human rights, so the term "dictatorship" is also an typology or Ideal type which (like a shoe or a Procrustean bed) cannot really be made to fit each "person". That is, it's not always bad for a country to be a dictatorship; dictatorship can be benevolent. And it's not always "democratic" for a party or leader to win an election. Hitler came to power without actually staging a coup (a combination of election results and behind-the-scenes maneuvering), but no one considers Nazi Germany to have been "democratic".
There is much to put into the article. I hope nobody will revert to an old version, but go an and add whatever it currently lacks - or move things up or down within the article. Reverting to one's favorite old version merely impedes progress. Discussing problems and looking for mutually acceptable solutions is better. -- Uncle Ed 14:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I just reviewed some of the earlier talk. 172 wrote:
Sorry if I'm taking this out of context. I don't meant to. Please correct me if I'm distorting your meaning, but...
It looks like you personally dispute the fact that totalitarianism has ever existed anywhere on the earth in modern times. If that is your POV, fine. Argue for it all you want. But not at Wikipedia. POV-pushing, as you know, is not permitted here.
It would not be pushing your own POV, however, if you listed in the article instances in which published writers (other than yourself!) denied the "historical reality of totalitarianism" and balanced this with writers who assert its reality.
In fact, if you don't believe in Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy, you don't have to supply the counter-examples that oppose the POV you cherish. You can just stand back and allow others to add them. Reverting all changes that you disagree with, back to one article version that you yourself wrote, would likely be seen as standing in the way of creating a balanced article. And that is what I'm asking you not to do.
I do not want to make Wikipedia take a stand favoring my own cherished point of view, if there is any kind of significant dispute about it. I helped to establish the NPOV guidelines. I know them backwards and forwards. I have never pushed a POV, even if I have through sloppiness failed to balance one with the other when editing quickly. I have always supported adding in the opposing POV when there is a dispute.
Accusing me of POV-pushing is slanderous, and I wish everybody would just stop it. All I want is a balance of points of view. If 9 out of 10 sources deny "the historical reality of totalitarianism" then fine: let 90% of the article be about how totalitarianism never really existed and is only an "ideal type". But based on what I've seen so far in my life, it's closer to 50-50 than to 90-10 on that. If I'm wrong, then the intro should say that most scholars feel that "totalitarianism" is a typology which does not correspond to reality. -- Uncle Ed 15:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Ignoring "age" thing due to edit conflict. Bring it up later if it's still important:
This is the first I've heard about totalitarianism not being a form of government. If you mentioned this before and I missed it somehow, sorry. Anyway, I just googled the following phrase:
...and the second entry Google returned was the Wikipedia article List of forms of government. Here is the entire intro:
Are you trying to say something like the CONCEPT of gravity doesn't make things fall to the earth - while privately acknowledging that gravity DOES make it fall? If so, I don't understand why that's significant. Gravity pulls stuff toward the center of the earth. Newton discovered the law of gravitation. I suppose SOME readers might be interested in the distinction between the force itself and the law governing the force, but remember we have lay readers for our science articles. And we don't confuse them with highblown distinctions. -- Uncle Ed 20:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not arguing anything. I'm waiting for you to explain why totalitarianism is not a "form of government." I figured by the time I got done googling (and editing the Christian communism article) you'd have an explanation ready. -- Uncle Ed 21:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that's an answer! Let me think that one over. Thanks. -- Uncle Ed 21:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Ed Poor, Improv explained to you for a second time why totalitarianism is not a "form of government" and why your edits overall were not helpful. Yet you reverted back to your version of the article. Your edits are not helpful. I suggest that you take a break from this article and put some more thought into your edits. 172 | Talk 22:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Crappy article. Don't say "typology," then link to a page that doesn't even define typology, but links to another page which defines "typological" as the study of types.
Just say "Totalitarianism is a type of government that..."
Jesus. Plain English people. Learn to f-ing write.
I agree that the word "typology" in the first line is not ideal. I've just now changed it to "term", is that acceptable? By the way ... (see next section) Paul August ☎ 17:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
172 --
Are you sure that this earlier version presents a clearer understanding of "totalitarianism" at the article's outset? To whom, and how so? Particularly given that, a) the link to typology placed in the opening sentence affords one access to the ideal type encyclopedic entry -- wherein ideal type is also defined (correctly) as a "typologicial term", and b) as someone points out early in this very discussion, "totalitarianism" is not in and of itself a political typology. "Totalitarianism" is a classification of state governance (imbued with certain sociological and economic ideologies, certainly), one which privileges the hegemonic capacities of those weilding power over the state above all other subject constituents' "rights." In the West, the term "totalitarianism" has been conveniently utilized to understand several modern historical circumstances: Mussolini's Italy, Tito's Yugoslavia, Hitler's Germany, Franco's Spain, Stalin's USSR, etc. If one were to explore any or all of these examples within this articles, then the governance of those nations might be referred to as typologies of totalitarianism. Yet by itself, totalitarianism is a typology (or, again, as someone suggested earlier, a taxonomy or category) of state governance.
sewot_fred 22:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Really? I tend to the think that the lacking clarity you pinpoint may be related to the use (and misuse) of the term "typology" , discussed in my commentary and strewn throughout the entry in question. This is why I attempted to remove the term in my proposed edit to the article's introduction.
sewot_fred 20:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Why is the first several paragraphs of the text commented out? I suspect this is part of a content duspute, but is this really necessary? it makes the article confusing to edit. Paul August ☎ 17:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed some parts which particularly seem to bother 172, who doesn't hesitate in rolling-back to earlier edits without integrating obvious ameliorations in some points. I guess leaving a detailed explanation is a normal way to proceed on Wikipedia, albeit it may sometimes be tiring re-explaining things at length. Lapaz 13:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
An article that focuses purely on totalitarian regimes would leave the "discussion of the term as a typology" to a separate article, for ease of writing. Any criticisms, made by advocates who (1) reject the concept itself or (2) dislike the use of the term or (3) care more about classifying the term than describing the regimes it demonets, can go in the other article. -- Uncle Ed 17:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I myself am neutral on whether (1) the word "totalitarianism" is a typology or (2) Totalitarianism is a form of government.
The bullet point above is the POV of Hannah Arendt.
Is there a published source which says the opposite, i.e., that totalitarianism is not a form of government? If so, we can quote that source! -- Uncle Ed 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Ed, there is not a dispute about whether the term "totalitarianism" is a typology. A typology is merely a classification, meaning that using the term does not imply that what is being classified is any less real. 172 | Talk 03:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Without disputing your revert of my edits, might I suggest that we incorporate the three edits following yours? Check out this diff and tell me whether you agree. I bet we all would agree with these minor changes. Cheers! :-)
Cut from article:
This needs a source. 172, did you write this? Being a college professor, surely you have a source at your fingertips. -- Uncle Ed 20:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Was I the one who cut this? Let's check the history... No, that was Lapaz. (diff). Instead of shouting at me, you should be thanking me for pointing out the cut.
You and I both want the article to have balance, and if there are sources who regard the old USSR as "pluralistic" that info should be in the article. -- Uncle Ed 00:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
172 wrote:
You don't have to 'go through me'. But the custom of Wikipedia is, as I'm sure you know, that instead of repeatedly reverting all of everyone else's changes to your own version, please discuss them on the talk page. This is a guideline, if not policy.
For example, why must 'typology' be in the first sentence? Is it an assertion that totalitarianism doesn't exist, i.e., it's merely an Ideal type? And does this mean that you are asserting that there have never been any totalitarian states?
If it's the latter, you MUST allow the article to reflect the dispute between advocates who support, and who oppose, this POV. Otherwise, the article would be one-sided. -- Uncle Ed 13:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, just couldn't wait. I have split the article into:
Please help expand the latter! -- Uncle Ed 14:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not a "POV page". The spin-off article is completely neutral. If not, please balance it so that does not favor one POV over another. (Which POV do you think it favors?)
This will not "open a Pandora's box". Any published author who calls a particular regime should be quoted and/or summarized. It will be easier to do this with two separate article: one for the regimes, the other for the term or concept.
Please read Wikipedia:How to break up a page. -- Uncle Ed 16:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
To prevent an immediate rollback from 172, I paste the following passage here and ask him to point out what's wrong with it. I don't take that to be the best written thing ever, but surely better than nothing. So, instead of 172's deletion of it, I'd like to hear his comments and appropriate changes in writing. Thanks in advance. Here it goes:
Thanks for comments. The second paragraph is included in 172's version, but not the third one, nor the allusion to Giovanni Gentile and statolatry. I find it quite strange to speak of totalitarianism without refering to statolatry, but again, someone like Arendt would certainly not be of the same opinion (since she precisely bases her distinction between fascism & nazism on this conception of the state; IMO, she underestimates a lot racism and anti-Semitism in Italian fascism, which was definitively present (see Ethiopia, etc.) although this racism (which one would argue was current elsewhere) was nowhere close to Hitler's "Final Solution". But her arguments concerning Italian antisemitism, notably in Eichmann in Jerusalem, seem quite light compared to the effective racist ideology of fascism (in its strict, Italian sense). Anyway, here's a dif of 172 and what he doesn't like. Please explain here before reverting. Thanks. Lapaz 15:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
This flipping back and forth between majorly different versions of the article is hostile to participation by other editors. When you make changes involving chopping out multiple, reasonably well-cited paragraphs scattered around the article with a comment that is no more meaningful than saying "I like my version better", that is never going to help move toward consensus.
Would someone among the people working on this list here on the talk page the issues in contention, preferably wording the disagreements in reasonably neutral language, so that we can see on which of these we may have at least a near-consensus? Thanks. I'll start the list with a few differences that are obvious to me. - Jmabel | Talk 05:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your attempt at negotiations. I've added some issues in contention. I hope 172 will rationally explain his choices, be it publicly or even in private (as he has repeatedly reversed my edits, and rv Ed Poor when he tried to include them again.) I don't pretend to write a top-quality essay, but find it quite strange not to have a subsection about Hannah Arendt's important thesis and of deleting clearly consensual stuff such as the inclusion of personality cult & single-party state as main characteristics of totalitarian regimes. If the text is deemed poorly written, then maybe 172 will help in improving its quality when and if he find some time for that. We are not in a hurry, but I'd like some explanations. Lapaz 20:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Please feel free to add to this list and to start a section to try to reach consensus on any of these issues.
Here's the proposed text deleted by 172:
"Hannah Arendt argued that while Italian fascism constituted a classical case of dictatorship, Nazism and Stalinism fundamentally differed from such forms of tyranny, in that the single-party state was completely subjected to the party, either a representative of the nation (conceived by Nazism as a Volksgemeinschaft - a Nazi neologism for "National community" -, which could only be achieved by gaining control of all aspects of cultural and social life - Gleichschaltung) or of the proletariat. To the contrary, according to Arendt's controversial thesis, Mussolini's fascism still respected the authority of the state on the party. Arendt also underlined the role of pan-Germanism and pan-Slavism in both Nazism and Stalinism, which she described as "continental imperialisms" whom connected themselves to the racist discourse born during the New Imperialism period. Hannah Arendt's thesis on the totalitarian identity between Nazism and stalinism has inspired a generation of thinkers, and has been also widely contested. It has been argued that fascism shared more traits with Nazism, including a common ideology, which set these two regimes apart from communist regimes such as the USSR."
IMO not accurate enough for reasons explained above. Lapaz 20:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
IMO unnecessary. Better not to split the debate into two articles when we can't even agree in this one. Lapaz 20:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Definitively an important book written by serious historians. The thesis is controversial but has lit a huge debate. Lapaz 20:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 ( talk) 22:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
Obvious characteristic of totalitarianism. Must be included. Lapaz 20:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Obvious characteristic of totalitarianism. Must be included. Lapaz 20:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The inventor of the term. Must be included. Here is the passage contested by 172, may be improved if he want, but the theme should be dealt with. "Gentile ghostwrote Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism (1931), which used the term " statolatry" (formed on idolatry) and "totalitarianism"." after "The term, employed in the writings of the philosopher Giovanni Gentile, was popularized in the 20th century by the Italian fascists under Benito Mussolini." in the first subsection. Lapaz 20:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Bruno Rizzi, La Bureaucratisation du monde (The Bureaucratisation of the World) (1939) and Carl Schmitt, Die Diktatur (1928) Must be included. Please provide rationale for excluding them. Lapaz 20:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
This article has been listed for deletion but was kept. If it exists, it obviously should be linked to from here. But shouldn't it be merged here? The concept is unheard of in scholarly circles. Lapaz 20:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Could the former racist Apartheid regime of South Africa have qualified as a totalitarian state, at least in view of its regulation of the lives of non-white peoples (always the majority)?
Arguments for:
1. The Nationalist Party may not have been the only Party in racist South Africa, but it was the only one that had meaningful power. The African National Congress, which would have represented most citizens of South Africa, was outlawed. Such other parties as existed were best described as 'minor' parties utterly ineffective in achieving anything. South Africa under Apartheid was in practice a single-party state in the sense that the DDR was before 1989.
2. Although white people had extensive freedom, they were the only ones who could vote, and they were the only ones with meaningful freedom and security of property or vocational choice. Non-whites were subject to numerous regulations of personal life, especially the infamous Pass Laws that regulated where they could be at any time. Non-whites could never supervise whites irrespective of the level of skill. Although white people had security of property, non-whites (example: the Cape Coloured) had none. When it became fashionable for people to own seaside property, Coloureds were forced to sell out cheaply to whites. Apartheid was inconsistent with laissez-faire economics.
3. The government, and not old custom or personal violence, was the enforcer of such measures, in part through a secret police (BOSS, similar in some respects to the KGB). This fact distinguishes the Apartheid system from Jim Crow practices of the southern United States before 1965, practices that Americans of African origin could escape with relative ease.
4. The government had a clear and consistent ideology backing its practices and a will to promote that ideology elsewhere.
5. It denied the right to vote to people on grounds of ethnicity.
6. The demise of the system was seen by non-whites in much the same manner as was the demise of communism was.
The qualifications are, of course, that Apartheid was not restrictive against whites (except in prohibiting sexual relations with non-whites), so if the system was totalitarian toward the black majority it was not so clearly totalitarian toward whites, and that it allowed freedom of religion. -- 66.231.41.57 02:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Stretch? Sure. What one person calls totalitarian and what another seems a matter of taste, in part because the word totalitarian itself is a pejorative. Totalitarian states as a strict rule are modern (as opposed to traditional) and illiberal but demogoguic. Totalitarian systems claim to be the definitive democracies in contrast to such "plutocracies" (as the Soviet and nazi leadership called them) the United States of America or Great Britain during the 1930s and 1940s.
In any event, the lumping of all "socialist" states together as "totalitarian" ignores that some totalitarian states are more complete than others. For example, East Germany under Erich Honecker was far less totalitarian than Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, and that toward the end of its existence the Soviet Union had been gutted of most of the attributes of a totalitarian state. If one is to call Mussolini's Italy "totalitarian", one must remember that the imposition of state power and the absence of both choice and an independent legislature (in the end the Chamber of Deputies voted itself out of existence) was a gradual practice. Italy in 1925 still had traces of democracy; by 1940 it had none.
It is tempting, of course, to associate totalitarianism with brutality, but traditional systems like Ottoman Turkey during the First World War (genocide against the Armenians), despotisms in which the Leader shows no obvious ideology ( Idi Amin's Uganda) need not be seen as totalitarian.
... Can one describe the Ba'ath dictatorships in Syria and the former one in Iraq as "totalitarian"? -- Paul from Michigan 03:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's some grist for the concept that Apartheid was essentially totalitarian:
http://www.anc.org.za/books/reich.html
To be sure, any wide-ranging comparison of Apartheid-era South Africa to Nazi Germany borders on the hysterical. Obvious dissimilarities include that South Africa was never more hostile to Jews than the USA or Great Britain and that the system, explloitative as it was toward non-whites, was never genocidal. The system needed its serfs, but also needed to keep them in absolute fear. But non-whites had no rights and only 'privileges' that the racist régime found necessary (essentially to work for some of the lowest industrial wages on Earth under often horrible conditions) on a personal basis that it could revoke at will. Nonetheless, comparisons of "Christian Nationalism" to nazism in its conceptions of Blut und Boden and its unambiguous racial hierarchy (if a different hierarchy, one that sought to assimilate and co-opt Jews instead of annihilating them) fit well. Nazi Germany, like South Africa, established a racist hierarchy in which some people (Germans and in theory "kindred" people) to be assimilated into the German Volk were to live like kings off the exploited toil of Untermenschen.
The source is the African National Congress, a political party whose bias is to be expected in view of its old underground struggle against the system. But the ANC has a good record on civil liberties and human rights as well as never having taken advantage of its overwhelming majority. It is nearly the antithesis of any totalitarian party. Apartheid now has no tenability as a political cause -- but neither does fascism or communism in much of Europe; its crushing of liberties of most people was obvious. If white people dissented with the system they could leave with comparative ease -- but non-whites couldn't because most were destitute.
Apartheid in South Africa has most of the hallmarks of totalitarianism: modernity of methods, militancy and militarism, a bloated State apparatus, a brutal secret police (BOSS), widespread repression, absence of a meaningful or potent opposition, a firmly-defined and illiberal ideology, the potential for great terror and violence even if it was not used often, subordination of the welfare of the majority to an ideology, and utter rejection of laissez-faire principles in economics. It attempted to spread its ideology into such neighboring countries as Lesotho, Swaziland, and Botswana (failures) and Rhodesia (with some success), so it must be considered expansionist in practice.
Not all repressive systems are totalitarian. Those that have no clear ideology ( Idi Amin's Uganda), traditional despotism (Saudi Arabia), crude kleptocracy, and those that accept capitalism wholeheartedly while rejecting racism ( Augusto Pinochet's Chile) seem to fit into Jeanne Kirkpatrick's grouping of 'authoritarian' states. Because of the pervasive liberalization of economics, if not politics, the People's Republic of China (regimented politically, repressive, but no longer expansionist) might now have to be removed from the 'totalitarian' list. Unless one is to accept Kirkpatrick's definition of totalitarianism to include only communist states, such systems as Apartheid-era South Africa, the Ba'athist régimes of Syria and Iraq, the 'military-socialist' régimes of Burma and Libya, and of course WWII-era Japan must be seen as nearly, if not fully, totalitarian.
Where does one draw the line? -- Paul from Michigan 07:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Chomsky is an anarchist opposed to all forms of authority-if anyone has proof of his lack of 'distain' for totalitarianism, I'd be interested to see it. In the mean time, I've removed this risible smear. Felix-felix 08:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Another unhelpful edit-reversing the meaning of the original passage(Totalitarian regimes are intolerant of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, such as involvement with labour unions, churches or political parties.),by the addition of the word 'opposing' in front of labour with no evidence offered. Not only was this edit totally evidence free, but is also untrue (Solidarity springs to mind) and misleading. A little difficult to not view it as another malicious edit. I hope I'm wrong, of course. FelixFelix talk 07:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Totalitarianism/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
==Edit warring==
Edit warring continues on this article with 172 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continuing, as he has for many years, insisting on his version of the article, see =Totalitarianism&diff=300685853&oldid=300685457 this edit where the current version of 24k is simply replaced with a 10k version from the history of the article more to 172's liking. When the longer version was restored 172 simply reverted, =Totalitarianism&diff=302574296&oldid=302520822 with the comment "rv original research/pov". Fred Talk 15:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
|
Last edited at 02:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 20:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Because of its loose structure and unfocused narrative, this has long been a mess off "original research" and off-topic commentary. I've replaced it with a comprehensive, if brief, new article focused and organized enough to allow further expansion, so long as it is engaged in the core scholarly literature on the subject. I expect and welcome feedback. 172 21:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
There are currently two main differences to deal with, as the remainder may come down to style. The definition in terms of typology is clearly the standout, and there is also the more minor issue of the basic proviso to paragraph 3. Last things first. The bald proposition that the involvement of the military and captains of industry in the political process may mean that totalitarian regimes are not "truly" totalitarian must have a rider. Something which acknowledges that the mere involvement of elites in the political process does not mean that we are not dealing with a totalitarian regime. The very lack of internal and external transparency also illustrates that a "monolithic" appearance is telling in itself. Ok, typologies. How does having the meaning defined in terms of "ideal types" assist the general readership and the overall aims of the project (also note WP:Lead)? Why should anyone need to read and understand independent subject matter in order to digest the definition? Can we please have the comments of others on this point so that we achieve consensus? 172, may we both hold off on further edits on this point until a consensus is reached. Obey 04:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
And from WP:Lead :-
The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see Wikipedia:Summary style and news style). The first sentence in the lead section should be a concise definition of the topic unless that definition is implied by the title (such as 'History of …' and similar titles).
To get a better understanding of what a great lead section should do, the perfect article: "Begins with a definition or clear description of the subject at hand. This is made as absolutely clear to the nonspecialist as the subject matter itself will allow. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to codify human knowledge in a way that is most accessible to the most people, and this demands clear descriptions of what the subject matter is about. So we aren't just dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word—we are eased into it."
And on accessibility (same guideline) :-
In general, specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be succintly defined within the introduction.
172, you seem insistent that this definition must remain as is. Do you see no better or more useful definition? And for everyone else, is it really the umabiguous consensus view to maintain the definition of "totalitarianism" as a "typology"? If nothing else, can this be the view, given the style guidelines? Obey 09:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
specify. what would be the significance other than some "bad guy" no longer being premier
I have no idea what sort of argument you are attempting to attribute to me here. The typical distinction made in Soviet policy occurs either immediately upon Stalin's death or after Khrushchev's speech in 1956 (or specifically the release of many gulag prisoners and so on). I don't see that the distinction is particularly necessary to make here, so it is simply shorted to "after the premiership of Stalin", which is literally true in any such case. -- TJive 06:06, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I'm surprised to see no mention of Karl Popper on this page. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Cut from intro, first sentence:
I clicked on 'typology' and it didn't help me understand anything. Maybe the problem is that we're trying to force an adjective into a noun's clothing.
Kirkpatrick classified regimes as "totalitarian" based on certain criteria. But in order to fit in with the usual scheme, we have to use the noun form:
Looks like "totalitarian" means "trying to control every aspect of society". But there is no political ideology that is specificaly devoted to controlling every aspect of society. This desire or practice of being hyper-controlling is a feature or property - a means toward an end.
Maybe that's why it's so hard to swallow as a concept.
The other difficulty is that Kirkpatrick and others use it to condemn Communists and Nazis alike (even though supporters of both of these WW2 enemies claim to be sooooo different). We don't hear much from Nazis these days; Europe won't even let them talk. But Communists go to great lengths to portray themselves as the good guys and Nazis as the great enemy of mankind; but they also criticize the West and democracy and especially the United States. It's pretty tangled up.
Are we Wikipedians up to the task of untangling it all? Uncle Ed 17:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I reinserted the term "typology." To Ed Poor, if the Wikipedia entry did not help clear things up, I suggest going beyond Wikipedia to searches of databases of academic journals, or even just Google. Lots of information can be found readily if you to a search for both the terms typology and totalitarianism. A typology, by the way, is sometimes called a taxonomy. In socail sciences a typology is a term for the classicfication of social phenomena. 172 | Talk 16:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
This article should be about what important academics and politicians call "totalitarian" societies. Whether these take the form of states or regimes - and whether the term "totalitarianism" refers to an ideology or a degree of control should of course be mentioned in the article, particularly if there is some dispute about this.
If there are writers and others (outside of Wikipedia) who object to the marriage of fascism and communism, let's say so in the article. Who opposes the definition of "totalitarianism" which lumps Hitler and Stalin together? Supporters of Stalin, maybe? Fine: say so in the article.
But Kirkpatrick, Popper and others use the term.
Calling totalitarianism a "typology" is bewildering, and we should notbewilder our readers. Please stop changing the article to say that totalitarianism is a typology. And no fair, referring you fellow contributors to a good library. You and I are not debating here, 172. We are supposed to working together to craft a useful and simple article for Wikipedia's readers. If a sophisticated man like me can't understand it - and if you can't explain it - then it's probably nonsense.
None of us is allowed to impose their own ideas. Not Ed Poor, not 172, not any of us volunteers. We are only allowed to describe the concepts and terms used by the world outside Wikipedia. Uncle Ed 17:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Our article now speaks of Friedrich and Brzezinski as originating the critique of Stalinism as "totalitarian", but that is already there in Popper and Arendt. -- 00:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting my typo-- more evidence that my eyes keep getting worse and worse. 172 | Talk 09:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
This article lists some references, but gives no indication which facts are cited to which references. Some of the purported references look very unlikely to me. George Orwell's, 1984 is a work of fiction, and is not explicitly mentioned in the article, so how could it have been a reference? Joost A. M. Meerloo, M.D, The Rape of the Mind available on line appears to be a book on brainwashing, not particularly on totalitarianism: for what, precisely is it a reference? Similarly, while we treat the views of J. L. Talmon's The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy at totalitarian democracy, his views are hardly mainstream. For what was he used as a reference? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
A totalitarian state would not necessarily prohibit religion, if the religion were a vehicle for the state's ideology. Freedom of religion would of course be prohibited, but participation in a state religion might be compulsory. Therefore, I have added the word "non-conforming" to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.11.167.210 ( talk • contribs) 6 March 2006.
In a series of revisions, I removed, User:Obey restored, and then I removed again this sentence in the intro commenting on criticisms of the explanatory power of the concept of totalitarianism: "Others respond that the very absence of transparency and the existence of an oligarchy tend to imply the existence of a totalitarian state." I have no idea who's making this 'response.' I'm pretty familiar with the academic literature on the subject; so I doubt that I'm simply unfamiliar with a common argument, which the sentence is purportedly representing. Moreover, simply put, I doubt that it's a argument put forward by a specialist because it is hopelessly incoherent. The "the very absence of transparency and the existence of an oligarchy" does not "imply" totalitarianism. Elements of "oligarchy"-- an ancient concept dating back to Aristotle-- are not exclusive to any one type of political system. The sentence is likely (bad) "original research."
I urge other editors to be vigilant of the insertion of original research here. This article, like many articles on politics in Wikipedia, can be a magnet for original research because people are often familiar with political concepts, and have strong opinions on them, while not being too familiar with scholarly definitions of terms. 172 | Talk 09:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The new sentence is neither here nor there: However, the mere fact that such elites participate in the political process does not exclude the possibility of a totalitarian regime. I have no idea who's making that claim, or who's suggesting otherwise. 172 | Talk 09:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Obey's change to the first paragraph is also particularly problematic: The paragraph closes by stating the following: In political science, especially in comparative politics, the term is a typology used to describe modern regimes with such characteristics. This sentence presupposes the historical reality of totalitarianism. Yet totalitarianism remains a contested concept. I restored the original wording, which is carefully worded to avoid making implict POV statements. 172 | Talk 09:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Such a warm embrace after a wikibreak. Before starting afresh, your initial comments are hardly "critical feedback" and what comes off as snide arrogance in your second batch of comments may be that tone thing again. And a minor point: elites references "army, political leaders, industrialist". But leaving all of this aside, we need to reexamine your insistence on casting the definition primairly in terms of typologies. The discussion has already been carried on by others above and I will try to restart that discussion there so that we are finished with this other irrelevancy. Obey 09:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
This article is for the well-educated layman, but should also be accessible to high-school and college students. Expressions like "ideal type" and "typology" obscure the discussion.
If the point of critics of the term is that it is WRONG to apply the term "totalitarianism" to regimes which these critics endorse - on the grounds that the term carries an unfairly negative connotation, then the article should simply register that objection. Many advocates of Communism bristle (or worse!) whenever parallels are drawn between the all-encompassing state control of everyday life in Communist regimes (like the USSR) and Fascist regimes (like Nazi Germany). Well, that's their Point Of View, and we should describe it.
The two most commonly heard points that writers (outside Wikipedia, I mean) assert about "totalitarianism" are:
Our challenge in this article is not to reconcile thest two points of view, and certainly not to endorse one over the other. We should describe each POV accurately and attribute it to its proponents. -- Uncle Ed 13:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. A good faith heads up on the typology thing: I've RFCd again on the talk page. My self-evident agenda is to recast the definition primarily in something other than the non-accessible (as I say) "typologies". Is there room for compromise? If you're amenable, any suggestions? What about the second part of the lead of my last effort? Can that be redrafted so we have general definition first, immediately followed by a redrafted reference to typologies? Would you at least agree that an improved, self-contained definition is possible? Or do you feel that we must have "(T) is a typology employed by political scientists..."? I will also be tweaking that last paragraph on monoliths etc but I'm hoping that this will be less controversial. Constructive dialogue may yet work for us... Obey 09:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
You wrote:
I need to know what you mean by this. If you mean that the use of the term "totalitarianism" is contested, then we can all help each other (and our readers) by defining precisely how each of several various political scientists or other writers use the term.
If you mean that there is a debate over whether totalitarian regimes (i.e., all-encompassing, hyper-controlling dictatorships) are GOOD or BAD for the people, then you're on solid editorial ground. There is indeed a well-known and age-old debate over this very point, with dozens or hundreds of answers to the questions of how much control a state should exert over its people and which aspects of should come under its control.
Would you please help me and Obey by agreeing to separate the two questions?
I'm sure we can work in the concept of "typology" somewhere! ;-) -- Uncle Ed 13:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
172, you cut the 2 sections above from your talk page with the comment that they belong here at talk:Totalitarianism (these posts belong on the article talk page [1]). I have pasted them, assuming (in good faith) that you meant to do so yourself.
But your reversion of my edits lacks sufficient explanation. Please dialogue with us on the above points before proceeding further. -- Uncle Ed 16:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Your edits are riddled with inaccuracies. This is the most glaring: Usage note: some scholars object to the term totalitarianism as a neologism or "typology" (see ideal type) and refuse to apply it to fascism or Communism. A typology is not necessarily a neologism. In particular the term "totalitarianism" is so well established that it is by now not a neologism. And it is not criticism to call something a typology! 172 | Talk 17:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The entire article seems like an argument for the point of view that:
There is very little information about totalitarian regimes, such as fascism under Mussolini and Hitler or Communism in many places. -- Uncle Ed 20:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
No, it is not. I'm baffled about how you seem to be extrapolating by virtue of the usage of the term "typology." As for more information on the history, this is a wiki. Click on the hyperlinks and go to relevant articles on the regimes discussed in this article. 172 | Talk 05:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I find the current header that 172 put up, which does not discuss "means" until a later paragraph and documents the term more than the concept, to be a more encyclopedia-like coverage of the subject. -- Improv 13:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
172 reverted ALL my changes indiscriminately saying Not this again. User:Ed Poor, we already thoroughly discussed this matter in his edit summary. [] However, I have not had answers to any of my questions. He has merely responding by saying that he already answered me. I still don't understand why "typology" is so important as to require mention in the first sentence of the article. And I have other questions.
172, please discuss your large reversions before making them. -- Uncle Ed 14:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Ed Poor, try to keep you comments under the same section header for a change. It's pointless to be carrying out the same conversation at once under multiple headings. 172 | Talk 19:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I suggest we divide the article into parts describing those scholars or others who advocate the use of the term, from those who criticize the term as useless, easily misapplied, etc.
Before my current round of edits, the article seemed to be almost entirely focused on asserting that the terms "totalitarian" and "totalitarianism" are useless, impractical and (even hinted that they were) mere propanganda terms.
I'd like to get away from this hinting and marginalizations and get the real issue out in the open.
Some politicians and intellectuals (group #1) find the term useful. They apply it to the "totalitarian twins" of Fascism and Communism, finding several significant aspects in both types of dictatorship.
Labeling it a "typology" or "ideal type" in the first sentence supports the POV that group #1 is incorrect but without identifying the sources (group #2) who dispute the first group's point of view. (If the second group has only one member, i.e. user:172, then I'm not sure we should mention his views at all; but I assume good faith.)
Please help me balance the article between those who find "totalitarianism" a useful term (or concept) and those who (for whatever various reasons) do not. And please supply sources for all advocates of either point of view - don't simply "revert because we already discussed it or came to consensus" because this is a new point which has NOT been discussed yet. -- Uncle Ed 14:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you acknowledging that there is a dispute (in academia or elsewhere) over the usefulness or applicability of the term "totalitarianism"? If so, please help me rewrite the article to reflect the existence of this dispute. -- Uncle Ed 15:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps your missing my point because I've stated it incompletely. I'm saying the article should be about totalitarian goverments. How they come to power and keep power. What motivates dictatorships and ruling classes to controll the masses so minutely. What life is like in such countries.
The article should not be 90% about the claims by "some" (and not even identified) that the term "totalitarianism" is misused or that the concept of "totalitarianism" is (as you hint) some kind of made-up thing with no real application.
If your point is that "totalitarianism" is a bad term or useless concept, you need to provide a source for this.
If you think it's a useful concept and that there is some value in labelling the term a "typology", please note (BEFORE your next mass revert) that both terms - "typology" and ideal type - are in the intro. -- Uncle Ed 19:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Unsourced claims:
Can you help me find a source for this? Which critics? And which "characteristics"?
Who argues that a dictatorship is "not as monolithic as it appears" if it has internal conflicts between power groups? Does this mean that it doesn't "regulate nearly every aspect of public and private behavior"? If so, who says so? And what examples do they give? -- Uncle Ed 15:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Edgar Sims is a relatively obsure figure. His quotation doesn't belong in the intro. In the intro we are best suited in starting with the major figures and working our way down to less relevant material. 172 | Talk 19:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I had an illuminating discussion on IRC last night with someone who insisted that "Communism" hadn't killed anybody. What he meant was that the concept itself took no action, and as far as that goes he was right. If you fall off a building, Newtons discovery, i.e., the Law of gravitation, is not what kills you; gravity kills you (by slamming you into the ground with more kinetic energy than you can absorb.
Kids, don't try this at home. If you think gravity is safe because "a concept can't hurt you" ...
This article should be about totalitarian governments and the ideologies which motivate them (or which they teach their subjects), just as the article on Dictatorship is about dictatorships. Every article about forms of government should be about the governments which assume those forms. If we can add a bit about the theory of how these forms might work in the ideal, so much the better. And we're always interested in etymology, i.e., how the terms used to describe these forms of governments came into use or fell into disuse.
I know that some people don't like to have their favorite form of government called "totalitarian". We should probably mention this distaste for the label in the article. In particular, leftists hate any association between Communism and Fascism, and there's at least one prominent intellectual (or politician) who brands these as "totalitarian twins". This is like the dispute over whether Nazism was ever really "socialist".
Instead of reverting, why not say what is wrong with even one of my contributions? I don't hit the target every time, but surely not all of my edits were incorrect. Tell me where this article needs to go, and what improvements you suggest. -- Uncle Ed 16:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, you have taken back your claim that I removed the term "typology" and you want Ed Sims moved out of the intro. I'm happy with both of these. Kirkpatrick and Arendt are better known scholars.
Your point about using Wikipedia to verify Wikipedia is well taken. Let's get more material into this encyclopedia. There's a whole bunch of stuff out there in books - only some of which can be found on the web. -- Uncle Ed 18:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Ed Poor, you keep on reverting back to your same flawed version, despite appearing to change your tune on the talk page. I really recommend that you take a break from this article. Your intentions are probably good. But you're not helping here. 172 | Talk 18:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Look, I've taught classes on history of the political theory. Frankly, I know what I'm doing if I'm making reversions here, even if I may be slow in posting explanations on the talk page right away. Now, give me a few minutes to come up with a more detailed response. I keep on getting into edit conflicts with you. You're editing at a pace that's much faster than the one I'm used to. (I'm not a long-time computer programmer as you are. I work slowly online. The process of using a computer itself is relatively new to me.) 172 | Talk 18:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
First, I wish you would refrain from removing the discussion of the term in terms of a typology in the lead sentence for reasons Improv and I already relayed to you. Also, I don't understand your insistence on moving down the pedagogical reference to comparative politics. The pedagogy is essential if we are to start this article off by solidly anchoring it in an academic discourse. Second, stop moving the paragraph detailing the criticisms of the explanatory power of the concept outside the intro. That paragraph is particularly important, as it discusses a leading current in political science literature responding to the theorists of totalitarianism writing in the 1950s and early 1960s. Third, I do not see the point of your new "communism and fascism" section. There is already a section discussing the work of theorists such as Arendt who use the concept to describe both fascist and communist regimes. The section is redundant. 172 | Talk 18:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. As we are all fairly long-term editors, we should be able to do better than we have in working together on this article. -- Improv 14:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Recovery from edit conflict:
I read the intro to Ideal type again today, and accordingly modifed the intro to Totalitarianism. I suggest we review some major examples of countries labelled "totalitarian" and show (in the article) how they do and do not match the definition.
I suppose the reason that 172 kept reverting all my changes to his preferred version, was that he felt that without an early and prominent mention of the words "typology" or "ideal type", readers might get the impression that all governments deemed "totalitarian" were despotic to the same degree. Yugoslavia was not nearly as controlling as North Korea is, for example. And not every Fascist country had an Iron Curtain keeping people in and journalists out.
Dictatorships in general vary in the degree to which they suppress human rights, so the term "dictatorship" is also an typology or Ideal type which (like a shoe or a Procrustean bed) cannot really be made to fit each "person". That is, it's not always bad for a country to be a dictatorship; dictatorship can be benevolent. And it's not always "democratic" for a party or leader to win an election. Hitler came to power without actually staging a coup (a combination of election results and behind-the-scenes maneuvering), but no one considers Nazi Germany to have been "democratic".
There is much to put into the article. I hope nobody will revert to an old version, but go an and add whatever it currently lacks - or move things up or down within the article. Reverting to one's favorite old version merely impedes progress. Discussing problems and looking for mutually acceptable solutions is better. -- Uncle Ed 14:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I just reviewed some of the earlier talk. 172 wrote:
Sorry if I'm taking this out of context. I don't meant to. Please correct me if I'm distorting your meaning, but...
It looks like you personally dispute the fact that totalitarianism has ever existed anywhere on the earth in modern times. If that is your POV, fine. Argue for it all you want. But not at Wikipedia. POV-pushing, as you know, is not permitted here.
It would not be pushing your own POV, however, if you listed in the article instances in which published writers (other than yourself!) denied the "historical reality of totalitarianism" and balanced this with writers who assert its reality.
In fact, if you don't believe in Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy, you don't have to supply the counter-examples that oppose the POV you cherish. You can just stand back and allow others to add them. Reverting all changes that you disagree with, back to one article version that you yourself wrote, would likely be seen as standing in the way of creating a balanced article. And that is what I'm asking you not to do.
I do not want to make Wikipedia take a stand favoring my own cherished point of view, if there is any kind of significant dispute about it. I helped to establish the NPOV guidelines. I know them backwards and forwards. I have never pushed a POV, even if I have through sloppiness failed to balance one with the other when editing quickly. I have always supported adding in the opposing POV when there is a dispute.
Accusing me of POV-pushing is slanderous, and I wish everybody would just stop it. All I want is a balance of points of view. If 9 out of 10 sources deny "the historical reality of totalitarianism" then fine: let 90% of the article be about how totalitarianism never really existed and is only an "ideal type". But based on what I've seen so far in my life, it's closer to 50-50 than to 90-10 on that. If I'm wrong, then the intro should say that most scholars feel that "totalitarianism" is a typology which does not correspond to reality. -- Uncle Ed 15:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Ignoring "age" thing due to edit conflict. Bring it up later if it's still important:
This is the first I've heard about totalitarianism not being a form of government. If you mentioned this before and I missed it somehow, sorry. Anyway, I just googled the following phrase:
...and the second entry Google returned was the Wikipedia article List of forms of government. Here is the entire intro:
Are you trying to say something like the CONCEPT of gravity doesn't make things fall to the earth - while privately acknowledging that gravity DOES make it fall? If so, I don't understand why that's significant. Gravity pulls stuff toward the center of the earth. Newton discovered the law of gravitation. I suppose SOME readers might be interested in the distinction between the force itself and the law governing the force, but remember we have lay readers for our science articles. And we don't confuse them with highblown distinctions. -- Uncle Ed 20:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not arguing anything. I'm waiting for you to explain why totalitarianism is not a "form of government." I figured by the time I got done googling (and editing the Christian communism article) you'd have an explanation ready. -- Uncle Ed 21:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that's an answer! Let me think that one over. Thanks. -- Uncle Ed 21:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Ed Poor, Improv explained to you for a second time why totalitarianism is not a "form of government" and why your edits overall were not helpful. Yet you reverted back to your version of the article. Your edits are not helpful. I suggest that you take a break from this article and put some more thought into your edits. 172 | Talk 22:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Crappy article. Don't say "typology," then link to a page that doesn't even define typology, but links to another page which defines "typological" as the study of types.
Just say "Totalitarianism is a type of government that..."
Jesus. Plain English people. Learn to f-ing write.
I agree that the word "typology" in the first line is not ideal. I've just now changed it to "term", is that acceptable? By the way ... (see next section) Paul August ☎ 17:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
172 --
Are you sure that this earlier version presents a clearer understanding of "totalitarianism" at the article's outset? To whom, and how so? Particularly given that, a) the link to typology placed in the opening sentence affords one access to the ideal type encyclopedic entry -- wherein ideal type is also defined (correctly) as a "typologicial term", and b) as someone points out early in this very discussion, "totalitarianism" is not in and of itself a political typology. "Totalitarianism" is a classification of state governance (imbued with certain sociological and economic ideologies, certainly), one which privileges the hegemonic capacities of those weilding power over the state above all other subject constituents' "rights." In the West, the term "totalitarianism" has been conveniently utilized to understand several modern historical circumstances: Mussolini's Italy, Tito's Yugoslavia, Hitler's Germany, Franco's Spain, Stalin's USSR, etc. If one were to explore any or all of these examples within this articles, then the governance of those nations might be referred to as typologies of totalitarianism. Yet by itself, totalitarianism is a typology (or, again, as someone suggested earlier, a taxonomy or category) of state governance.
sewot_fred 22:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Really? I tend to the think that the lacking clarity you pinpoint may be related to the use (and misuse) of the term "typology" , discussed in my commentary and strewn throughout the entry in question. This is why I attempted to remove the term in my proposed edit to the article's introduction.
sewot_fred 20:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Why is the first several paragraphs of the text commented out? I suspect this is part of a content duspute, but is this really necessary? it makes the article confusing to edit. Paul August ☎ 17:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed some parts which particularly seem to bother 172, who doesn't hesitate in rolling-back to earlier edits without integrating obvious ameliorations in some points. I guess leaving a detailed explanation is a normal way to proceed on Wikipedia, albeit it may sometimes be tiring re-explaining things at length. Lapaz 13:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
An article that focuses purely on totalitarian regimes would leave the "discussion of the term as a typology" to a separate article, for ease of writing. Any criticisms, made by advocates who (1) reject the concept itself or (2) dislike the use of the term or (3) care more about classifying the term than describing the regimes it demonets, can go in the other article. -- Uncle Ed 17:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I myself am neutral on whether (1) the word "totalitarianism" is a typology or (2) Totalitarianism is a form of government.
The bullet point above is the POV of Hannah Arendt.
Is there a published source which says the opposite, i.e., that totalitarianism is not a form of government? If so, we can quote that source! -- Uncle Ed 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Ed, there is not a dispute about whether the term "totalitarianism" is a typology. A typology is merely a classification, meaning that using the term does not imply that what is being classified is any less real. 172 | Talk 03:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Without disputing your revert of my edits, might I suggest that we incorporate the three edits following yours? Check out this diff and tell me whether you agree. I bet we all would agree with these minor changes. Cheers! :-)
Cut from article:
This needs a source. 172, did you write this? Being a college professor, surely you have a source at your fingertips. -- Uncle Ed 20:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Was I the one who cut this? Let's check the history... No, that was Lapaz. (diff). Instead of shouting at me, you should be thanking me for pointing out the cut.
You and I both want the article to have balance, and if there are sources who regard the old USSR as "pluralistic" that info should be in the article. -- Uncle Ed 00:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
172 wrote:
You don't have to 'go through me'. But the custom of Wikipedia is, as I'm sure you know, that instead of repeatedly reverting all of everyone else's changes to your own version, please discuss them on the talk page. This is a guideline, if not policy.
For example, why must 'typology' be in the first sentence? Is it an assertion that totalitarianism doesn't exist, i.e., it's merely an Ideal type? And does this mean that you are asserting that there have never been any totalitarian states?
If it's the latter, you MUST allow the article to reflect the dispute between advocates who support, and who oppose, this POV. Otherwise, the article would be one-sided. -- Uncle Ed 13:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, just couldn't wait. I have split the article into:
Please help expand the latter! -- Uncle Ed 14:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not a "POV page". The spin-off article is completely neutral. If not, please balance it so that does not favor one POV over another. (Which POV do you think it favors?)
This will not "open a Pandora's box". Any published author who calls a particular regime should be quoted and/or summarized. It will be easier to do this with two separate article: one for the regimes, the other for the term or concept.
Please read Wikipedia:How to break up a page. -- Uncle Ed 16:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
To prevent an immediate rollback from 172, I paste the following passage here and ask him to point out what's wrong with it. I don't take that to be the best written thing ever, but surely better than nothing. So, instead of 172's deletion of it, I'd like to hear his comments and appropriate changes in writing. Thanks in advance. Here it goes:
Thanks for comments. The second paragraph is included in 172's version, but not the third one, nor the allusion to Giovanni Gentile and statolatry. I find it quite strange to speak of totalitarianism without refering to statolatry, but again, someone like Arendt would certainly not be of the same opinion (since she precisely bases her distinction between fascism & nazism on this conception of the state; IMO, she underestimates a lot racism and anti-Semitism in Italian fascism, which was definitively present (see Ethiopia, etc.) although this racism (which one would argue was current elsewhere) was nowhere close to Hitler's "Final Solution". But her arguments concerning Italian antisemitism, notably in Eichmann in Jerusalem, seem quite light compared to the effective racist ideology of fascism (in its strict, Italian sense). Anyway, here's a dif of 172 and what he doesn't like. Please explain here before reverting. Thanks. Lapaz 15:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
This flipping back and forth between majorly different versions of the article is hostile to participation by other editors. When you make changes involving chopping out multiple, reasonably well-cited paragraphs scattered around the article with a comment that is no more meaningful than saying "I like my version better", that is never going to help move toward consensus.
Would someone among the people working on this list here on the talk page the issues in contention, preferably wording the disagreements in reasonably neutral language, so that we can see on which of these we may have at least a near-consensus? Thanks. I'll start the list with a few differences that are obvious to me. - Jmabel | Talk 05:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your attempt at negotiations. I've added some issues in contention. I hope 172 will rationally explain his choices, be it publicly or even in private (as he has repeatedly reversed my edits, and rv Ed Poor when he tried to include them again.) I don't pretend to write a top-quality essay, but find it quite strange not to have a subsection about Hannah Arendt's important thesis and of deleting clearly consensual stuff such as the inclusion of personality cult & single-party state as main characteristics of totalitarian regimes. If the text is deemed poorly written, then maybe 172 will help in improving its quality when and if he find some time for that. We are not in a hurry, but I'd like some explanations. Lapaz 20:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Please feel free to add to this list and to start a section to try to reach consensus on any of these issues.
Here's the proposed text deleted by 172:
"Hannah Arendt argued that while Italian fascism constituted a classical case of dictatorship, Nazism and Stalinism fundamentally differed from such forms of tyranny, in that the single-party state was completely subjected to the party, either a representative of the nation (conceived by Nazism as a Volksgemeinschaft - a Nazi neologism for "National community" -, which could only be achieved by gaining control of all aspects of cultural and social life - Gleichschaltung) or of the proletariat. To the contrary, according to Arendt's controversial thesis, Mussolini's fascism still respected the authority of the state on the party. Arendt also underlined the role of pan-Germanism and pan-Slavism in both Nazism and Stalinism, which she described as "continental imperialisms" whom connected themselves to the racist discourse born during the New Imperialism period. Hannah Arendt's thesis on the totalitarian identity between Nazism and stalinism has inspired a generation of thinkers, and has been also widely contested. It has been argued that fascism shared more traits with Nazism, including a common ideology, which set these two regimes apart from communist regimes such as the USSR."
IMO not accurate enough for reasons explained above. Lapaz 20:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
IMO unnecessary. Better not to split the debate into two articles when we can't even agree in this one. Lapaz 20:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Definitively an important book written by serious historians. The thesis is controversial but has lit a huge debate. Lapaz 20:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 ( talk) 22:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
Obvious characteristic of totalitarianism. Must be included. Lapaz 20:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Obvious characteristic of totalitarianism. Must be included. Lapaz 20:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The inventor of the term. Must be included. Here is the passage contested by 172, may be improved if he want, but the theme should be dealt with. "Gentile ghostwrote Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism (1931), which used the term " statolatry" (formed on idolatry) and "totalitarianism"." after "The term, employed in the writings of the philosopher Giovanni Gentile, was popularized in the 20th century by the Italian fascists under Benito Mussolini." in the first subsection. Lapaz 20:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Bruno Rizzi, La Bureaucratisation du monde (The Bureaucratisation of the World) (1939) and Carl Schmitt, Die Diktatur (1928) Must be included. Please provide rationale for excluding them. Lapaz 20:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
This article has been listed for deletion but was kept. If it exists, it obviously should be linked to from here. But shouldn't it be merged here? The concept is unheard of in scholarly circles. Lapaz 20:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Could the former racist Apartheid regime of South Africa have qualified as a totalitarian state, at least in view of its regulation of the lives of non-white peoples (always the majority)?
Arguments for:
1. The Nationalist Party may not have been the only Party in racist South Africa, but it was the only one that had meaningful power. The African National Congress, which would have represented most citizens of South Africa, was outlawed. Such other parties as existed were best described as 'minor' parties utterly ineffective in achieving anything. South Africa under Apartheid was in practice a single-party state in the sense that the DDR was before 1989.
2. Although white people had extensive freedom, they were the only ones who could vote, and they were the only ones with meaningful freedom and security of property or vocational choice. Non-whites were subject to numerous regulations of personal life, especially the infamous Pass Laws that regulated where they could be at any time. Non-whites could never supervise whites irrespective of the level of skill. Although white people had security of property, non-whites (example: the Cape Coloured) had none. When it became fashionable for people to own seaside property, Coloureds were forced to sell out cheaply to whites. Apartheid was inconsistent with laissez-faire economics.
3. The government, and not old custom or personal violence, was the enforcer of such measures, in part through a secret police (BOSS, similar in some respects to the KGB). This fact distinguishes the Apartheid system from Jim Crow practices of the southern United States before 1965, practices that Americans of African origin could escape with relative ease.
4. The government had a clear and consistent ideology backing its practices and a will to promote that ideology elsewhere.
5. It denied the right to vote to people on grounds of ethnicity.
6. The demise of the system was seen by non-whites in much the same manner as was the demise of communism was.
The qualifications are, of course, that Apartheid was not restrictive against whites (except in prohibiting sexual relations with non-whites), so if the system was totalitarian toward the black majority it was not so clearly totalitarian toward whites, and that it allowed freedom of religion. -- 66.231.41.57 02:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Stretch? Sure. What one person calls totalitarian and what another seems a matter of taste, in part because the word totalitarian itself is a pejorative. Totalitarian states as a strict rule are modern (as opposed to traditional) and illiberal but demogoguic. Totalitarian systems claim to be the definitive democracies in contrast to such "plutocracies" (as the Soviet and nazi leadership called them) the United States of America or Great Britain during the 1930s and 1940s.
In any event, the lumping of all "socialist" states together as "totalitarian" ignores that some totalitarian states are more complete than others. For example, East Germany under Erich Honecker was far less totalitarian than Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, and that toward the end of its existence the Soviet Union had been gutted of most of the attributes of a totalitarian state. If one is to call Mussolini's Italy "totalitarian", one must remember that the imposition of state power and the absence of both choice and an independent legislature (in the end the Chamber of Deputies voted itself out of existence) was a gradual practice. Italy in 1925 still had traces of democracy; by 1940 it had none.
It is tempting, of course, to associate totalitarianism with brutality, but traditional systems like Ottoman Turkey during the First World War (genocide against the Armenians), despotisms in which the Leader shows no obvious ideology ( Idi Amin's Uganda) need not be seen as totalitarian.
... Can one describe the Ba'ath dictatorships in Syria and the former one in Iraq as "totalitarian"? -- Paul from Michigan 03:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's some grist for the concept that Apartheid was essentially totalitarian:
http://www.anc.org.za/books/reich.html
To be sure, any wide-ranging comparison of Apartheid-era South Africa to Nazi Germany borders on the hysterical. Obvious dissimilarities include that South Africa was never more hostile to Jews than the USA or Great Britain and that the system, explloitative as it was toward non-whites, was never genocidal. The system needed its serfs, but also needed to keep them in absolute fear. But non-whites had no rights and only 'privileges' that the racist régime found necessary (essentially to work for some of the lowest industrial wages on Earth under often horrible conditions) on a personal basis that it could revoke at will. Nonetheless, comparisons of "Christian Nationalism" to nazism in its conceptions of Blut und Boden and its unambiguous racial hierarchy (if a different hierarchy, one that sought to assimilate and co-opt Jews instead of annihilating them) fit well. Nazi Germany, like South Africa, established a racist hierarchy in which some people (Germans and in theory "kindred" people) to be assimilated into the German Volk were to live like kings off the exploited toil of Untermenschen.
The source is the African National Congress, a political party whose bias is to be expected in view of its old underground struggle against the system. But the ANC has a good record on civil liberties and human rights as well as never having taken advantage of its overwhelming majority. It is nearly the antithesis of any totalitarian party. Apartheid now has no tenability as a political cause -- but neither does fascism or communism in much of Europe; its crushing of liberties of most people was obvious. If white people dissented with the system they could leave with comparative ease -- but non-whites couldn't because most were destitute.
Apartheid in South Africa has most of the hallmarks of totalitarianism: modernity of methods, militancy and militarism, a bloated State apparatus, a brutal secret police (BOSS), widespread repression, absence of a meaningful or potent opposition, a firmly-defined and illiberal ideology, the potential for great terror and violence even if it was not used often, subordination of the welfare of the majority to an ideology, and utter rejection of laissez-faire principles in economics. It attempted to spread its ideology into such neighboring countries as Lesotho, Swaziland, and Botswana (failures) and Rhodesia (with some success), so it must be considered expansionist in practice.
Not all repressive systems are totalitarian. Those that have no clear ideology ( Idi Amin's Uganda), traditional despotism (Saudi Arabia), crude kleptocracy, and those that accept capitalism wholeheartedly while rejecting racism ( Augusto Pinochet's Chile) seem to fit into Jeanne Kirkpatrick's grouping of 'authoritarian' states. Because of the pervasive liberalization of economics, if not politics, the People's Republic of China (regimented politically, repressive, but no longer expansionist) might now have to be removed from the 'totalitarian' list. Unless one is to accept Kirkpatrick's definition of totalitarianism to include only communist states, such systems as Apartheid-era South Africa, the Ba'athist régimes of Syria and Iraq, the 'military-socialist' régimes of Burma and Libya, and of course WWII-era Japan must be seen as nearly, if not fully, totalitarian.
Where does one draw the line? -- Paul from Michigan 07:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Chomsky is an anarchist opposed to all forms of authority-if anyone has proof of his lack of 'distain' for totalitarianism, I'd be interested to see it. In the mean time, I've removed this risible smear. Felix-felix 08:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Another unhelpful edit-reversing the meaning of the original passage(Totalitarian regimes are intolerant of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, such as involvement with labour unions, churches or political parties.),by the addition of the word 'opposing' in front of labour with no evidence offered. Not only was this edit totally evidence free, but is also untrue (Solidarity springs to mind) and misleading. A little difficult to not view it as another malicious edit. I hope I'm wrong, of course. FelixFelix talk 07:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Totalitarianism/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
==Edit warring==
Edit warring continues on this article with 172 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continuing, as he has for many years, insisting on his version of the article, see =Totalitarianism&diff=300685853&oldid=300685457 this edit where the current version of 24k is simply replaced with a 10k version from the history of the article more to 172's liking. When the longer version was restored 172 simply reverted, =Totalitarianism&diff=302574296&oldid=302520822 with the comment "rv original research/pov". Fred Talk 15:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
|
Last edited at 02:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 20:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)