Suchergebnisse

This article aims to identify the dynamics of the Russian political regime and explain its sources. The article addresses the research problems of what the dynamics of the Russian political regime entailed from the beginning of the Russo- Ukrainian war to the end of Putin's third presidential term as well as the sources of the dynamics. It verifies the hypothesis that the authoritarian regime started adopting totalitarian elements of the party-state apparatus, totalitarian political gnosis, and mass and controlled social mobilization in time. There were very strong neo-imperial tendencies and post-imperial nostalgia which contributed to the epigonic nature of the system changes. However, qualitative change of the system has not occurred. The research makes use of source analysis and the technique of conceptual content analysis to gather the data necessary to evaluate the changes in the Russian political regime in the mentioned aspects. The researchers triangulated mass media information and monographs and adopted the principle of theoretical sampling to verify the information necessary to recognize the values of the three indicators. Furthermore, the research applies three dual typologies of the essential features of political regimes to differentiate between the state of the system during individual ellipses of bifurcation.

Applies ethnomethodological analysis to Martin Drath's (1958) work on "primary" & "secondary" phenomena of totalitarianism to explain totalitarianism as a special mode of reality construction, & to show how ethnomethodology serves to provide a better understanding of it. Drath's conception of totalitarian dictatorships as products of the value systems of political actors is explored, showing that his macrolevel view of the institutional consequences of these social groups has a significant impact on microlevel analyses of everyday life. It is argued that supplementing the study of totalitarianism with a sociology of reality construction in everyday life offers a more complete picture. The principles of ethnomethodological analysis are applied to Drath's account of mechanisms by which totalitarian rules destroy elements of old value systems & create new ones. Ethnomethodological analysis reveals the systematic structure of reality destruction/reconstruction that is at the core of Drath's concept, & suggests that all political attempts at social/cultural reform contain the potential for totalitarian rule. J. Lindroth

Totalitarianism & individualism are 2 complementary philosophical approaches to psychology that have serious political ramifications. Individualism (liberalism) arose during an early stage of capitalist development, & totalitarianism (behaviorism) grew out of liberalism as capitalist society matured. The individualist point of view is focused entirely on the isolated person who encounters problems in experiencing, growing, coping, trusting, & expressing emotions. The totalitarian (behaviorist) approach declares its fundamental rejection of individualist notions & subjective experiences by appealing to science, objectivity, & observable data. Whereas individualist psychology stresses the "free will" outlook that considers the person as an active, responsible being behaving in accordance with what is perceived as best for him & expressing what he feels is important, the totalitarian "determinist" school views the person as a conglomeration of responses established & elicited by well-defined environmental stimuli whose behavior must be acceptable to social demands. Totalitarianism is concerned with the prediction, control, measurement & quantification of public behavior; individualism emphasizes the private, personal & particular aspects of feelings & thoughts. Yet both philosophical approaches have much in common; behaviorism & individualism both assert that: man is basically antisocial, self-centered, & withdrawn; social change can only occur through individuals changing; & psychological analysis should focus on the individual level & not on the group or societal level. A 3rd school of thought, the dialectical perspective, rejects both individualist & totalitarian outlooks, & proposes that people are not passive, unintelligent, nonsocial beings either conforming or escaping. Individuals are both influential on & influenced by the social system, & their experiences are both determined by & transcendent of existing relationships. A. Karmen.

Gaining momentum in the early decades of the 20th century, a number of fascist and other authoritarian regimes could be found around the world by the 1950s. Many persist into the present day. Often led by oppressive dictators, these regimes share many characteristics, though each differ in various ways as well. This volume examines the historical trajectory of dictatorship, fascism, and totalitarianism; their characteristics; where they intersected and how they differed; and some of the individuals-including Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, among many others-infamous for violently imposing t

"Occasionally, there are books that try to make sense of a key moment in history - and become an indispensable guide to the times we live in. This book is one of them. In The Psychology of Totalitarianism, world-renowned Professor of Clinical Psychology Mattias Desmet deconstructs the societal conditions that allow collective psychosis to take hold. By analysing our current global situation and identifying the phenomenon of 'mass formation' - a type of collective hypnosis - he illustrates how close we are to repeating totalitarian behaviours within democratic structures. Totalitarianism is not a coincidence and does not form in a vacuum. Desmet explains how it arises from a collective psychosis that has followed a predictable script throughout history, its formation gaining strength and speed with each generation - from the Jacobins to the Nazis and Stalinists - in lockstep with technological advances. He demonstrates how governments, mass media and other large, 'mechanised' forces use fear, loneliness and isolation to demoralise populations to exert control, persuading large groups of people to act against their own interests, always with destructive results. Building on Hannah Arendt's essential work on totalitarianism, The Origins of Totalitarianism, Desmet offers a sharp critique of the cultural 'groupthink' that existed pre-pandemic but has steadily and inexorably advanced during the Covid crisis. He cautions against the dangers of our current societal landscape, media consumption and reliance on manipulative technologies and then offers simple solutions - both individual and collective - to prevent the willing sacrifice of our freedoms. The Psychology of Totalitarianism describes exactly how, during this extraordinary time of loneliness, free-floating anxiety and fear, we are surrendering our freedoms and giving way to censorship and loss of privacy - driven by a dominant crisis narrative that excludes dissident views and relies on destructive groupthink"--

After the introduction, the first part of the paper is devoted to defining the concepts of artificial intelligence and totalitarianism, where the importance of distinguishing between the current (machine learning) and the projected (superintelligence) phase in the development of artificial intelligence, i.e. between the embryonic (totalitarian movement out of power) and the established (totalitarian movement in power) stage in the development of totalitarianism is underlined. The second part of the paper examines the connection between the current level of artificial intelligence and the embryonic phase of totalitarianism, while the third part of the paper analyzes the potential relationship between the superintelligence and the established totalitarianism. It seems, considering the similarities and differences between the effects of contemporary and future artificial intelligence and the effects of earlier totalitarianism, that today (and in the future) we do not have a mere replica of totalitarian phases from the 20th century, but special totalitarian phenomena in the form of "capillary totalitarianism", i.e. "hypertotalitarianism". Last century's totalitarianism, as well as today's "capillary" variant of it, were not necessarily irreversible, but "hypertotalitarianism" will be. In conclusion, protective measures against the risk of artificial intelligence are proposed, in the form of the principle of exemption (modeled after the concept of conscientious objection).

"Will man den Aufstieg, die Expansion und den Zusammenbruch des Sowjetmodells aus gesellschaftstheoretischer Sicht analysieren, sind in erster Linie zwei Probleme zu klären. Auf grundbegrifflicher Ebene stellt sich die Frage, ob wir es mit einem auf spezifischen Prinzipien basierenden und mit spezifischen Problemen konfrontierten System zu tun haben oder mit einer historischen Konstellation, die auf diverse Quellen zurückgeht, heterogene Elemente verbindet und kontextbedingten Wandlungen unterliegt. Diese Kontroverse muß aber im Zusammenhang mit den inhaltlichen Alternativen diskutiert werden, die die theoretische Debatte über die sowjetische Erfahrung nach wie vor beherrschen: der Modernisierungstheorie und den - weniger einheitlichen - Deutungsversuchen, die sich an dem Totalitarismusbegriff orientieren. Beide Seiten tendieren zu Vorentscheidungen zugunsten des systemtheoretischen Ansatz, aber die geschichtliche Dimension muß - wenn auch auf jeweils andere Weise - bis zu einem gewissen Grade berücksichtigt werden. Erst eine Synthese der beiden Perspektiven würde es ermöglichen, auch die Differenz und den Zusammenhang zwischen der historischen und der systemlogischen Sichtweise adäquater zu verstehen. Es wird darum gehen, das totalitäre Phänomen als Antwort auf interne Konflikte der Moderne zu begreifen, und die Subsumtion der Modernisierungsprozesse unter das totalitäre Projekt sowie die wechselseitige Anpassung dieser beiden Seiten als Kernstück der sowjetischen Variante der Moderne und Hintergrund ihrer Krise zu rekonstruieren. Im Hinblick auf die vorgegebene westliche Entwicklungslinie kann man das Modell als eine Kombination von struktureller Blockierung und selektiver Radikalisierung bezeichnen." (Autorenreferat)

A review essay on a book by Tzvetan Todorov, Hope and Memory: Lessons from the Twentieth Century ([David Bellos, Tr] Princeton: Princeton U Press, 2003).

Tzvetan Todorov's book, originally published in 2000 in French and now available in a superb translation, paused at the end of a violent century to attempt to assess-as the title and subtitle suggest-how to remember it and what lessons to learn. A contemporary figure in the long tradition of French-speaking moralists, Todorov writes beautifully and with ethical passion about some of the darkest crimes in humanity's recent history. For Todorov, these crimes are not just past: reflecting on them can provide guidance for contemporary international affairs, such as NATO's intervention in Kosovo or the current war on terrorism. Todorov's basic theses are two: first, totalitarianism counts as the primary novelty of the twentieth century and has to be the basis for moral reflection about it; second, there is a proper manner of response to totalitarianism, which consists of the defense of a democratic and pluralistic alternative politics, one that reacts to the disasters of the past with moral vigilance in the present.… Many in France since the mid-1970s have adopted the concept of "totalitarianism"-much criticized elsewhere-to refer to the new alternatives to democratic rule-fascist and communist-thrown up by the twentieth century. … Todorov is intervening in a characteristically French debate in which the distinction of the regimes from one another has become part of a much larger ideological dispute and therefore freighted with heavy implications.What implications? For of course, it is hard to gainsay Todorov's argument that it is necessary for the experience of politically evil regimes to be at the heart of moral reflection today. Even so, Todorov's book illustrates some of the difficulties toward which such a commitment can lead….

Significantly, we have few if any studies of the totalitarian O dictator as a personality type. It may be that we are little closer to a working psychological model of him than Plato took us with his brilliant sketch of the ideal type of the "tyrant" in The Republic. The contemporary literature on totalitarianism does, of course, contain materials that are relevant to the problem of characterization of the totalitarian dictator. Yet no frontal attack appears to have been made upon the problem. The purpose of the present article is to argue the need for one, and to do this in the context of a critical reexamination of the theory of totalitarianism. In the course of it I shall put forward some ideas of possible use in developing a conception of the dictator as a personality type.

"In Totalitarianism in the Postmodern Age Piotr Mazurkiewicz et al. seek to answer the question whether a possible spread of pre-totalitarian attitudes among youth may in the near future pose a threat to the contemporary liberal democratic societies. The authors offer a new approach to the study of totalitarian trends in European societies significantly different from the previous one exploring mainly the historical and institutional-procedural aspects. The book not only offers interesting conclusions drawn from empirical research but also proposes an intellectually attractive theoretical model of understanding totalitarianism that can be used for further research. The impulse for this reflection was the research work performed by the authors on a cohort of contemporary youths from seven countries of Central and Eastern Europe"--

The hypothesis is defended that totalitarian leadership aims at the comprehensive & detailed control of all ideas, beliefs & statements in order to create the maximum insecurity among the people it controls. Taking examples from the 3 types of totalitarian regime--Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin, & China under Mao--the hyp is shown to account for the relevant data more satisfactorily than its principal alternative, which maintains that the data are to be understood in terms of a dogma or doctrine which determines the totalitarian's activities & to which he obliges everyone to conform. Under the alternative hyp, the existence of doctrine cannot be established &, even if it is assumed, the contradictory & arbitrary 'ideological' practices that characterize totalitarian regimes cannot be accounted for. To explain these practices by a general hyp, instead of merely accepting them or explaining them singly, the hypothesis of total insecurity is necessary. IPSA.