Suchergebnisse

Totalitarianism theory was one of the ratifying principles of the Cold War, and remains an important component of contemporary political discourse. Its origins, however, are little understood. Although widely seen as a secular product of anticommunist socialism, it was originally a theological notion, rooted in the political theory of Catholic personalism. Specifically, totalitarianism theory was forged by Catholic intellectuals in the mid-1930s, responding to Carl Schmitt's turn to the "total state" in 1931. In this essay I explore the notion's formation and circulation through the Catholic public sphere in both France and Austria, where "antitotalitarianism" was born as a new form of the traditional Catholic animus against the nation state project.

Following recent attacks on the value of totalitarianism theory as a tool of historical scholarship, this article sets out to clarify its meaning and counter the main objections to its use. After refuting claims that the theory is too freighted with Cold War baggage to serve any academic purpose, the concept of an inefficient totalitarian state is posited. A distinction is then drawn between the genocidal-charismatic totalitarianism of the Third Reich and the bureaucratic totalitarianism of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) and other East European Communist countries. Stalinist Russia is presented as a complex hybrid of the two. Both National Socialism and Marxist-Leninism are viewed as political religions. The article argues for a more flexible and pragmatic application of totalitarianism theory so that it can help explain change and collapse, address the alleged welfare achievements of the Soviet satellites and pay proper attention to the symbiotic links between state and society. Adapted from the source document.

'Der Beitrag versteht sich als Plädoyer für eine kulturgeschichtliche Erweiterung der Totalitarismuskonzeption. Denn die Ergebnisse der neueren Holocaustforschung haben den Blick für tief in die deutsche Gesellschaft eingelassene Dispositionen geschärft, aus denen sich ein erheblicher Teil der erschreckenden Dynamik der Judenvernichtung speiste. Damit wird zugleich die Begrenztheit der Erklärungskraft eines in der Totalitarismusthese vorherrschenden Ansatzes offenbar, welcher totalitäre Herrschaft als eine von oben durchorganisierte Form totaler staatlicher Penetration begreift.' (Autorenreferat)

The relevance of sociological theory for explaining the recent dramatic changes in Eastern Europe is at hand. The impact of the downfall of communism has been compared with those Great Transformations along which sociology evolved as a science of crisis par excellence (Habermas). The actual elaboration of a sociological theory of post-communist transformation and its relation to East European studies is, nevertheless, anything but clear. The unexpected collapse of socialism was perceived as a failure of prognosis and led to self-critical debates in all social science disciplines. In this rethinking its basic concepts, sociology is exposed to pressure from different sides - above all from the polemic launched with the surprising revival of the theory of totalitarianism against the ,,liberalist social sciences across the board. Influential historians like Robert Pipes, Martin Malia, Robert Conquest, and Francois Furet followed by sociologists from Robert Nisbet to Seymour Lipset hold the fatal influence exerted by social science concepts on Eastern European and Soviet Studies during the last decades responsible for the whole intellectual disaster in Western Academe which became apparent after 1989. These approaches, as the neo-totalitarian accusation runs, elevated Soviet socialism to a modernization strategy and conceded a reform capacity which, in fact, was not available. Target of this critique are all attempts of a social history from below, sociological theories of action and especially the positivist illusion of modernization theory. Blinded by political motives, it is said, the insights of (neo-)totalitarianism theory into the inevitable collapse of communism were dismissed. In order to correctly draw the lines in the controversies between neototalitarianism theory and the social science approach, it is helpful to follow them along the changing career of the concept of totalitarianism thereby reconstructing the sociological arguments involved in the current discussion on the disintegration of socialist societies. On this line it will be argued (section 2), that the crisis of the classic theory of totalitarianism and the social science approach in Soviet studies did not follow from a politically motivated revisionism since the 1960s and 1970s. Analysing the socialist societies after 1945 was shaped from the very beginning by sociological, political science and economic models, which contrasted with fundamental assumptions of the classic concept of totalitarianism (section 3). The findings generated by this type of research as well as its limits are revealed when it comes to explaining the disintegration of Soviet socialism. The neo-totalitarianist's objection is correct that ranging socialism in an evolutionary scheme of ascending forms of society was problematic. This construction seems highly inadequate in view of the postcommunist crises and regressions (section 4). On the other hand, a coherent and self-reliant neo-totalitarianism theory is not visible (section 5). Instead the research on Eastern Europe after 1989 has seen an explosive growth of the social science approach in the course of which many revisionist theorems have been refuted, modified or confirmed. Nevertheless, the wave of social science theories entering the post-communist studies does not imply a way back to the golden age of classic modernization theory. The lesson to be learned from (neo-)totalitarianism theory concerns the stress it lays on domination and its specific irrationalities, variables which were indeed neglected by mainstream sociology and, after the Soviet breakdown, are ignored by the liberalist optimism of neoclassic reform programmes. The drama of the post-communist crises reminds us that there are no hidden hands and no evolutionary universals which would lead, quasi automatically, to modernity. On the other hand, the lesson to be learned from the social science approach is that even the most total totalitarianism did not result from a logic of history, but from certain constellations of interests, reciprocities between rulers and ruled, institutions of administration and value commitments, etc. which are quite accessible to a reconstruction in sociological terms.

Tracing the development of the concept of totalitarianism, it is noted that while, in the 1930s-1940s, Frankfurt school members applied critical theory to examination of National Socialism, after WWII ended, Stalinism became the target of their critique. This shift led to a more orthodox understanding of totalitarianism, in which there is no strong difference between communist & fascist totalitarian regimes. However, critical theory also holds the conviction that liberalism as an ideological formation has within it certain contradictions that, in efforts for their resolution, could lead to totalitarianism. A political system is best judged within its socioeconomic environment. For Habermas, in his early years, the entanglement of liberalism & totalitarianism was significant in analyses of the modern state & the modern masses, ideas in convergence with Hannah Arendt's analysis. While both Habermas & Arendt would have abhorred religious fanaticism & the terrorism i t has engendered, they probably wouldn't have merely accepted as its cause a dichotomy between Western civilization & Eastern fanaticism & would have sought an answer through dialectical methodology. J. Stanton

Based on a reading of Hannah Arendt's "Kafka: A Revaluation" (Partisan Review, 1944) it is obvious that Franz Kafka's work had a significant impact on Arendt's understanding of totalitarianism. Other works by Arendt & by Kafka himself prove that there is a remarkable connection between Arendt's view of totalitarianism & Kafka's fiction. Though Arendt's own personal experiences & her creative thinking abilities were instrumental in the development of her totalitarianism theory, it is necessary to consider whether Arendt's reliance on "storytelling" is an appropriate mechanism for creating viable political theory. K. A. Larsen

This article offers a new reading of the place of Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism in the history of totalitarianism theory. Building on a novel genealogy of Marxist theories of totalitarianism, the article traces this inheritance into Arendt's early work on the subject, demonstrating that her "languages" (in the Pocockian sense) were basically continuous with those of interwar Marxism. The article proceeds in three stages. First, it reconstructs two core languages of interwar Marxism (imperialism and Bonapartism). Second, it shows how these languages underpinned a central controversy in Marxist theories of totalitarianism during World War II, a debate conducted in the languages of imperialism and Bonapartism and turning on the relationship between the political and the economic. Third, it shows that Arendt wrote in these languages and contributed to the same debate. In conclusion, this striking affinity with Marxism in Arendt's early work is contrasted with the emergence of classical totalitarianism theory—a project with which Arendt was soon eager to associate herself and which makes a unified and consistent reading of The Origins of Totalitarianism so difficult.

Preface -- Contents -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Ideologies of National Socialism, Communism, Christianity, and Islam -- 2.1 National Socialism -- 2.2 Marxism -- 2.3 Christianity -- 2.4 Islam -- 2.5 Conclusions -- References -- 3 The Theory of Totalitarianism and Mature Ideocracy, Part I: Evolution and Development -- 3.1 The Birth of Ideology and the Progress Toward Ideocratic Regimes -- 3.2 Further Development after Winning the Secular Power of the State -- 4 Further Historical Cases of Totalitarian Regimes -- 4.1 The Mongols Under Genghis Khan and His Immediate Successors -- 4.2 Aztecs and Incas -- 4.2.1 The Empire of the Mexicas -- 4.2.2 The Empire of the Incas -- 4.3 The Rule of the Anabaptists in Münster -- 4.4 Calvin's Regime in Geneva -- 4.5 The Mahdist State in the Sudan 1881-1898 -- 4.6 The Rule of the Taliban in the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan -- 4.7 The Islamic Caliphate in Syria and the Levant -- 4.8 The Bloody Trails of Totalitarian Regimes -- References -- 5 Mature Ideocracies -- 5.1 The Puritan State of Massachusetts -- 5.2 The Jesuit State in Paraguay -- 5.3 The Rule of the Dalai Lama in Tibet -- 5.4 Saudi Arabia -- 5.5 The Iranian Shiite Islamic Republic -- 5.6 Conclusions for the Theory of Totalitarianism and of Mature Ideocracies -- References -- 6 The Theory of Totalitarian Regimes, Part II: Stability, Further Development, and Demise -- 6.1 Development of Totalitarian Regimes Depending on the Universalism of Their Aims -- 6.2 Development of Totalitarian Regimes After Reaching Their Aims -- References -- 7 The Constitution of Totalitarianism -- 7.1 Introduction -- 7.2 Supreme Values as a Basis for a Constitution -- 7.3 Islam and Christianity as Examples of Such Types of Constitutions -- 7.4 The Importance of the Totalitarian Domain -- 7.5 Supreme Values and the Separation of Powers -- 7.6 The Intensity of Ideocratic Demands