Talk:Totalitarianism/Archive 2

Rewrite
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)


 * I agree that the article was largely a mess but some of the deleted content was valuable. The main sticking point in my mind is real world applicability and practices.  You seem to discount the value of the term itself and would thus be likely not only to deem the previous allusions to governments as original research but also to deny comparative reference to such regimes.  This is particularly the case in respect to cults of personality which correlates with even the three states most often described as being totalitarian--fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union--among others.  --TJive 23:37, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by my discounting of ther term. Personally I think that it has relevance in some areas of research both not others. I am partial to some of Linz's work in particular. At any rate I started a new section on its application in foreign policy, if this topic is to be expanded. 172 04:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The rewrite and more on "typologies"
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 :-
 * Would interested parties please enter this discussion on revising the definition away from "a typology employed by political scientists...". Bringing together some earlier comments:
 * 1) 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. (Ed Poor)
 * 2) ''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... (172)
 * 3) Calling totalitarianism a "typology" is bewildering, and we should (not?) ''bewilder 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... (Ed Poor)
 * 4) ''No political scientist would dispute that totalitarianism is a typology. If this is unclear to me, do not assume what you did not know earlier is "probably nonsense." Instead, go to Jstor, a database of academic journals online and do a search for reworks "totalitarian model," "typology," "and totalitarianism" and confirm it for yourself... (172)

''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)

Premiership
''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 agree with 172 on this point. the shift in the Soviet Union from totalitarianism to authoritarianism (though there are plenty that would still call post-Stalin era totalitarian despite lack of terror) is based on the fact that Khrushchev ended the deification of the Communist leadership and stopped mass terror. it should be specified. J. Parker Stone 06:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Good explanation, Trey. I'd add that the formal office of "premier" was ridiculously insignificant compared to Stalin's personal direction of the secret police, which he employed to subvert state and party to his personal terror. 172 06:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Popper
I'm surprised to see no mention of Karl Popper on this page. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought he was mentioned. Please go ahead and mention him, if you can and I don't get around to it first. Good job noticing that. 172 | Talk 15:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Typology?
Cut from intro, first sentence:


 * a typology employed by political scientists to describe

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:
 * monarchy
 * dictatorship
 * fascism
 * Communism
 * totalitarianism
 * democracy

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)


 * FWIW, I find Kirkpatrick's use of the term disingenuous and partisan, especially her tendency to find enemies to be almost uniformly "totalitarian" and friends with similar practices "authoritarian". But if you go back to Arendt, Popper, etc., I think there was a case to be made that Stalinism at its height had a lot in common with fascism, including Nazism, and that this is still echoed in neo-Stalinist regimes such as North Korea. That's not to say that they are interchangeable. And totalitarianism was never claimed to be an ideology. In your list above, it is a term more like "dictatorship" or "democracy" than like "fascism" or "Communism". -- Jmabel | Talk 06:46, 28 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)


 * Jmabel, I'm perplexed at your FWIW reply above. You acknowledge that Stalinism at its height had a lot in common with fascism, including Nazism and yet you find Kirkpatrick's use of the term disingenuous and partisan. Clearly there is a part you disagree with, but is there not also a part you agree with?
 * This is not a debating forum for Kirkpatrick's ideas. Further, there are specialized entries on Kirkpatrick's, meaning that we don't need to go in further detail here. 172 | Talk 20:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Anyway, HER view of the matter (her POV) is that there is SOMETHING in common between Stalinist Communism and Nazi fascism. She USES the adjective totalitarian to label this common aspect. Perhaps we need to look at her Dictatorships and Double Standards manifesto to grasp her point thoroughly.
 * That idea is not at all new to Kirkpatrick. It was Hannah Arendt who was the most influential in formulating that thesis, which is already addressed in this article. 172 | Talk 20:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Note that I do not ask Wikipedia to endorse K's point of view: just to describe it accurately. "Kirkpatrick regards X and Y as having common factor T." After that, the remaining 90% of the article can explain why everyone else in the world - except maybe Ronald Reagan - disagreed with her! Uncle Ed 16:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There already is an article on the "Kirkpatrick Doctrine," and the totalitarianism article already deals with her ideas. There are authors whose ideas were even more influential in formulating the concept of totalitarianism who get less attention in this article, so there's no need at all to expand the coverage on Kirkpatrick. 172 | Talk 20:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you, 172. Precisely. As I said, I don't have a problem with Arendt's or Popper's use of the term with reference to Nazism and to Stalinism at its height. That does not mean that I accept Kirkpatrick's applying it to virtually all 1970s Communist regimes while, at the same time, rejecting its application to virtually any right-wing regime of the period. I agree with 172 that this article has all the Kirkpatrick it needs, but it is terribly short on discussion of Arendt and does not even mention Popper, both of whom stand head and shoulders over Kirkpatrick in terms of original work on the concept of totalitarianism, and a generation earlier at that. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice concise start on Popper in the article. To add to your point on Kirkpatrick, I'd be surprised if Kirkpatrick herself would disagree and assert that her work is on the same level as Arendt and Popper's. I'm pretty sure that she saw her work as formulating a foreign policy doctrine, not formulating an original treatise on totalitarianism. At any rate, it was Juan Linz a few years back at the time who offered the strongest argument that the rightwing regimes of Latin America and Southern Europe were authoritarian and not totalitarian, in contrast to the Soviet Union under Stalin. 172 | Talk 00:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know Linz's work: that should probably also be added. I would agree that the South American right-wing regimes of the 1970s were not totalitarian (although Paraguay came close, and a few others weren't too far behind); where I would disagree with Kirkpatrick is her contention that the bulk of the Communist regimes of the time still were totalitarian. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think in you saying this - "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." - that it does show the current approach to the perspective without understanding what it meant as a label to those who made it self-applied, which should warrant me to cut & paste here what I put forth in the Benito Mussolini discussion page yesterday, as I with much reflection do not believe it meant that to those originally putting the term forth to describe themselves, here is what I wrote: - 'It is all in the definition of the term "Totalitarian", modern scholars consider it a system of complete enforced control & coercive method of governance upon its populace, a "total control" meaning of 'totalitarian'. Fascist Italy considered the word however to mean something more ideal & utopian if never actually implemented by them or otherwise; a term that correlates highly to Fascist Italy's 'corporative state' or the incorporation of all interests into the state "total". By which they mean 'all interests & walks of life' merging into and officialized/recognized publicly by the state. It can be proven the original "Fascists" meant no such 'coercive' connotations in the word as quoted in the 1932 'doctrine of Fascism' - "...(The state) is not simply a mechanism which limits the sphere of the supposed liberties of the individual...", & "...Neither has the Fascist conception of authority anything in common with that of a police ridden State..." rather it clearly connotes "...Far from crushing the individual, the Fascist State multiplies his energies, just as in a regiment a soldier is not diminished but multiplied by the number of his fellow soldiers...", in this way Fascist "Totalitarianism" was seen from the Italian perspective to be a kind of statist syndicalism, where the private individual interests, belonging to the individual alone, would be given wider leverage by the government & state, in a bureaucratic form, this was Fascism's "Corporative Syndicalism". I also think here, that 'Totalitarianism' when used for the Fascism that popularized it as a term, should be used in their utopian sense and not in a pejorative sense by revisionist scholars of a later era which go on to claim their definition of "totalitarianism" doesn't fit the Italian Fascist state because it wasn't "coercive" enough.' ... - So when using the word as they meant it, one can hardly apply a different meaning to the word anymore than when discussing terms such as egalitarianism or ideas on capital and applying different meaning to those ideas when considering Communist theory. Nagelfar 22:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Stick to the point
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.
 * As JMabel and I have already told you, Kirpatrick is not the only one who lumped Hitler and Stalin together. The term "totalitarianism" in Western political science was largely based on the work of Arendt and Brzezinski, which too sought to explain both the development of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. 172 | Talk 08:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

But Kirkpatrick, Popper and others use the term.

Calling totalitarianism a "typology" is bewildering, and we should not bewilder 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)
 * I am not imposing my own ideas. Speaking of which, I am going to revert the unilateral moving of the article. (It's obvious that we're dealing with states when we're dealing with totalitarianism. So adding "states" to the title is extraneous.) The term typology or idea type in political science and sociology refers to a conceptual model that serves as a way to circumscribe research. An ideal type is a historical approximation, not a perfect statement of reality, meant to simplify the endless matters when something could otherwise be described by the endless array of related information. This is not my POV. No political scientist would dispute that totalitarianism is a typology. If this is unclear to me, do not assume what you did not know earlier is "probably nonsense." Instead, go to Jstor, a database of academic journals online and do a search for reworks "totalitarian model," "typology," "and totalitarianism" and confirm it for yourself. 172 | Talk 08:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, 172, Brzezinski was a relative latecomer to this, too. Popper was publishing The Open Society and Its Enemies when Brzezinski was starting college. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but he was probably the leading figure in promoting the usage of the "totalitarian model" in Soviet studies in the U.S. political science. His model was dominant in scholarship on Russia until the late 1960s. So he has always been more influential in the academic literature than Kirkpatrick. 172 | Talk 08:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:06, 3 November 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)
 * The text was confusing. I changed the text to state that Friedrich and Brzezinski were primarily responsible for establishing the term as a paradigm for social science research of the Soviet Union. They did make very influential contributions in the sense that they help set the first dominant research agenda in Soviet studies. 172 | Talk 00:09, 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)

Religion
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. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.11.167.210 (talk • contribs) 6 March 2006.

Original research creep
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)


 * Oh, this is interesting. And a lovely tone to boot: what a useful addition to the discussion. I have responded on substantive matters above. On your droll exhortation to "other editors", let me descend to a comparable level and urge other editors to be viligant for the insertion of abstruse, specialist definitions, which are whimsically balanced with the use of colloquialisms like "monolithic". Obey 04:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are going to contribute to Wikipedia, you will have to expect critical feedback on your work. If another editor points out mistakes in your work, there is no need to be defensive. We all make mistakes. 172 | Talk 09:32, 17 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)
 * The term is a typology and must be discussed in terms of typologies. Since the time of the ancient Greeks political theorists have created typologies to decribe different political systems. Book VIII of Plato's Republic distinguishes a handfull of different types of states, including the oligarchic, tyrannical, and the democratic. Book IV of Aristotle's Politics undertakes a taxonomy of political systems distinguishing who rules and for whom. His taxonomy includes monarchy, aristocracy, polity, oligrarchy, and democracy. I can go on and on listing taxonomies through the history of political thought. Just about every major theorist, from Aristotle to Arendt, had his or her own taxonomy. There is an almost infinite range of ways political systems have been classified. In recent years, confronted by this vast array of understanding political forms, political scientists have attempted to classify and categorize, to develop typologies and models, or in some other way to bring analytic order to the vast array of different ways to describe political systems. "Totalitarianism" is one of these typologies. But it is used by some political scientists but not others. 172 | Talk 17:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarification and obscurity
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:
 * that the practice is bad
 * that Communism and fascism are "totalitarian twins"
 * people's lives should not be so closely controlled as the Soviets, Castro, Mao and Hitler attempted to do
 * that the term unfairly lumps in Communism - or socialism, which is or can be a very good thing - with Fascism, which "as we all know" is a bad thing

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)


 * This article will not be dumbed down. If readers are unfamiliar with the term typology, they can click on the hyperlink. This is a wiki. And by the way, not to be arrogant-- I'm sure I know how to speak to the "well-educated layman" better than you. My job is to teach this stuff to teenagers. 172 | Talk 17:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Totalitarianism
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)
 * I refer you to my post earlier: The term is a typology and must be discussed in terms of typologies. Since the time of the ancient Greeks political theorists have created typologies to decribe different political systems. Book VIII of Plato's Republic distinguishes a handfull of different types of states, including the oligarchic, tyrannical, and the democratic. Book IV of Aristotle's Politics undertakes a taxonomy of political systems distinguishing who rules and for whom. His taxonomy includes monarchy, aristocracy, polity, oligrarchy, and democracy. I can go on and on listing taxonomies through the history of political thought. Just about every major theorist, from Aristotle to Arendt, had his or her own taxonomy. There is an almost infinite range of ways political systems have been classified. In recent years, confronted by this vast array of understanding political forms, political scientists have attempted to classify and categorize, to develop typologies and models, or in some other way to bring analytic order to the vast array of different ways to describe political systems. "Totalitarianism" is one of these typologies. But it is used by some political scientists but not others. 172 | Talk 17:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 172 | Talk 17:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What the dispute is about
You wrote:


 * totalitarianism remains a contested concept

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?
 * 1) the definition of the term, its applicability to various types of regime, etc.
 * 2) the moral evaluation of the extent and degree of control a regime should exert

I'm sure we can work in the concept of "typology" somewhere! ;-) --Uncle Ed 13:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Giovanni Gentile, when describing the Mussolini regime, was the only major political theorist to use the term in a positive sense. The use of the term by other major political theorists and political scientists is negative. I mean that the term is contested in the sense that some political scientists use a different typology to describe a particular regime that another political scientist would describe as totalitarian. 172 | Talk 17:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No edit war
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 ). 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)
 * Be patient. I am responding to both of you. 172 | Talk 17:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ed Poor's edits
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)


 * Please do not revert the entire article to make one correction. If you feel a certain aspect is being neglected you need only point it out. We all want to cooperate here.


 * Can you explain in simple terms why it is important to describe the concept in terms of a typology?


 * Did you see my posts above this heading? I already described why it is important to describe the concept in terms of a typology in my posts earlier today. I do not need to repeat myself. BTW, now you created a new problem in your "usage note": Usage note: some scholars refer to the term totalitarianism as a "typology" or "ideal type" and insist that it be describe in these terms; others simply refuse to apply it to fascism or Communism (see below).  This is way off. The point of creating an ideal type is to apply it to describe the real world. All political theorists (not "some scholars") understand that it a typology, ideal type, taxonomy, or what have you. This usage note is confusing and unncessary. 172 | Talk 18:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Needs balance
The entire article seems like an argument for the point of view that:
 * the term "totalitarianism" is a stupid, made-up term that doesn't refer to anything in the real world

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)

FWIW
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's reversions
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, I'm not 172 (nor did he ever contact me about this -- I found it through Special:Randompage), but phrasing this as an ideal type (that is, a theoretical framework) feels like a more accurate and careful way to understand the term and its use. The version I just reverted from seemed to be propogandic and not introspective. I don't mean to butt in on the occasional issues that I remember existed between you and 172, but at least in this particular case I believe the article is better with the more academic phrasing. --Improv 14:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess you're not interested in discussing this. Oh well. Not a big surprise, really. --Improv 14:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't be so hasty: I spent the last 15 minutes writing the following section. Please see below. --Uncle Ed 14:41, 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)

Advocacy about term
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)


 * Labeling it as an ideal type does nothing to suggest the type is useless. It's the more academic, better opening for discussion over the term, where people apply it, and different meanings given to it. Discussing the term and its usage in is not problematic, and to open directly with one of the viewpoints on the term, as your versions do, makes for a poor-quality article and short-circuits the metadiscussion that belongs in an article like this. If you're going to be indignant about 172's revisions, how about you undo yours from mine while we discuss this? --Improv 14:56, 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)
 * I don't understand your point. The article already does that because it centered around, as Improv states, "discussion over the term, where people apply it, and different meanings given to it." I think you're seeing a problem that isn't there because-- for some reason that I cannot understand for the life of me-- you think that the concept is being criticized when one recognizes that it is a typology like (say) Weber's three types of legitimate authority-- another useful concept. 172 | Talk 19:14, 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)


 * It sounds to me like your ideas for the article are primarily propogandic rather than encyclopedic, in particular "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". This is very different from a careful examination of the concept of Totalitarianism, what it means, and what it explains. Using the term to criticise governments is a very different task than discussing the term, what it means, its origins, etc. The latter feels more scholarly (and thus encyclopedic) to me. The former seems a bit more partisan. This is not necessarily a bad thing in general (we all have political positions), but here is not the place. To possibly illuminate things, allow me to suggest a parallel to your text as a guide for an article on Heresy. "I'm saying the article should be about heretics. How they come to twist their originating faith, and grow. What motivates heretics to betray their faith and turn others from it...". The parallel to my thoughts on this are that a good article on Heresy should cover changing ideas of heresy, some things that have been claimed to be heretical, different perspectives on it today, etc. To delve into what is totalitarian (and especially criticising it) is similar to delving into what heresy is -- it enters highly contestable ground fraught with political definitions and interests. --Improv 21:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Explanatory power
Unsourced claims:


 * Critics of the concept contend that the term lacks explanatory power. They argue that governments which may be classified as totalitarian often lack characteristics said to be associated with the term. They may not be as monolithic as they appear from the outside, if they incorporate several groups, such as the army, political leaders, industrialists, which compete for power and influence. In this sense, these regimes may exhibit pluralism through the involvement of several groups in the political process.

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)
 * Ed Poor, read the rest of the article where some of the more recent literature on totalitarianism is discussed. Further detail can be found in the main body of the article. The intro is just supposed to offer a summary.


 * Further, the above summary is standard in entries on totalitarianism in professional sourcebooks and encyclopedias. For example, the The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics states the following in their entry on totalitarianism:  In the 1970s, a new school of Sovietology emerged which pointed to evidence both for popular support for the regime and for widespread dispersion of power, at least in implementation of policy, among sectoral and regional authorities. For some of the ‘pluralists’, this was evidence of the ability of the regime to adapt to include new demands. However, totalitarian theorists claimed that the failure of the system to survive showed not only its inability to adapt but the formality of supposed popular participation.


 * In addition, Oxford Reference's A Dictionary of Sociology in Politics & Social Sciences states the following: This approach evoked reactions from those who claimed that the Soviet system, both politically and as a social entity, was in fact better understood in terms of interest groups, competing elites, or even in quasi-class terms (using the notion of the nomenklatura as a vehicle for the new class). The use of the term became intertwined with Cold War stances, and in social science the explanatory power of the concept was questioned, not least because of its ahistorical and generalizing nature. It fell into disuse during the 1970s, although the notion of ‘post-totalitarianism’ featured in the debates around the reformability of the Soviet system. In due course, as the Soviet system crumbled, opponents of the concept claimed that the transformation of the USSR under Gorbachev proved that the Soviet system was not totalitarian. 172 | Talk 19:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Answering my own question:
 * Edgar Sims wrote:
 * Later uses of the term lacked great explanatory power because they did not specify the political economy behind it, and its use nowadays is even more limited.

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)


 * Well all right then. Who are the top 2 or 3 figures who used (or created) the term? Can we use Hannah Arendt as a "figure"? How about Jeanne Kirkpatrick?


 * And what are some of the best known (or most important) examples of totalitarian governments? How about Arendt's examples: Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia (USSR)? --Uncle Ed 19:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For further detail on Arendt's work on Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, read the rest of the article beyond the intro. 172 | Talk 19:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thing and concept
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)


 * Your musings above are totally incomprehensible to me. Please refrain from applying personal insights from your own "original research." Instead of reverting, why don't you read the responses you received yesterday, when Improv and I already went through your contributions point-by-point and explained to you why they were not helpful, from the Ed Sims quotation to the removal of the term "typology?" Take a look at excerpts from entries on totalitarianism from other reference sources that I posted on this talk page yesterday demonstrating the consistency of the coverage in this article with the coverage found in professional encyclopedias and sourcebooks. Read through those comments from yesterday and stop starting new discussion headings. 172 | Talk 17:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't remove the term "typology". I moved it down. Last time I checked, it was at the end of the intro. Please confirm whether it's still there.
 * Refer to a comment by Improv from yesterday referring to the need to open up the article in terms of a discussion of the academic literature. I strongly oppose moving down the reference to the term. 172 | Talk 18:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As for the Ed Sims quotation, I have moved it down a bit because you called him a relatively obsure figure above.
 * Anywhere in the intro is way too prominent. 172 | Talk 18:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I followed your suggestion about looking at excerpts from entries on totalitarianism - if not by viewing external links, at least by looking at other Wikipedia articles. That's where I got the Hannah Arendt thing. --Uncle Ed 18:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Try to get material from outside Wikipedia. I remember a while ago seeing another editor commenting on the practice of trying to verify something in Wikipeida by looking at another page in Wikipedia, saying that that can be compared to Ludwig Wittgenstein's example about buying a second copy of a newspaper to make sure that what he'd read in the first copy was correct. By the way, even though you claim to have read the excerpts, you still deleted the paragraph referring to the academics questioning the explanatory power of the concept. 172 | Talk 18:12, 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)
 * I also don't see why you move up Arendt above the list of the other scholars associated with the concept. That looks like we're picking and choosing favorites... I recommend using books and I do. I have free access to university library services for all Florida state schools. 172 | Talk 18:24, 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)


 * Pot and kettle department: You have reverted to your own version several times this month (just as you did last month) and hardly made any other contributions to the article.


 * I on the other hand, have responded to most of your criticisms and incorporated quite a few of your suggestions.


 * I don't understand why you ignore all my good additions. If you'll use the "diff" function, you'll see that the article is progressing. The only one who keeps reverting back to the same version is you. --Uncle Ed 18:32, 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)
 * Ed, you don't seem to be actually talking over the issues I and 172 are raising. Your edits show an intent to push POV, and have both made the article worse and introduced inaccuracies (Totalitarianism is a type of government? Not at all. It's a description people put on a number of radically different types of government). I ask that you
 * 1) Stop making new sections on the talk page to confuse the dialogue
 * 2) Go back and respond to some of the issues I and 172 have raised that are some sections back

Recovery from edit conflict:

Degree to which a government may be considered totalitarian
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)


 * Ed, please stop carrying the conversation through further subject headers! It makes it hard to track, and that means that objections and discussion points are not covered adequately. Could you look back over the many points that were raised in old topics and reply to some of them? I'm hesitant to add new comments knowing that they'll be 4 topics up (and unreplied to) by this afternoon. --Improv 16:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, I could make this sane again and remove all of the section headers and reparse this back into a real conversation. Please advise (and stop making more damned sections!) --Improv 16:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Totalitarianism and reality
I just reviewed some of the earlier talk. 172 wrote:


 * This sentence presupposes the historical reality of totalitarianism

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 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)


 * Yes, you are taking me out of context. You continue to fail to understand what typology means. A typology can be an extremely useful analytic tool in describing reality. There is no disputing the fact that the concept of totalitarianism is a typology. Refer to Improv's comments earlier. You seem to be repeating yourself every time you start a new discussion heading. Yet your points/confusions have been addressed over and over again. 172 | Talk 19:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The one thing you have never explained is why "totalitarianism" must be introduced as a "concept" while no other form of goverment needs this. Reverting ALL my changes to YOUR favorite version, instead of answering this, is silly. --Uncle Ed 19:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Improv already explained to you why totalitarianism is not a "form of government." Is the reason you keep starting new discussion headings over and over again because you are not interested in even bothering to read the replies that you have already received? 172 | Talk 19:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Notice Improv's comments earlier: Your edits... have both made the article worse and introduced inaccuracies (Totalitarianism is a type of government? Not at all. It's a description people put on a number of radically different types of government). I ask that you Stop making new sections on the talk page to confuse the dialogue Go back and respond to some of the issues I and 172 have raised that are some sections back. 172 | Talk 20:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, Ed, you can't pull your age of involvement in the project as being unique here. I was watching the project since back when I was on the Nupedia mailing list, and 172 is a historian. We all have credentials, and have been on Wikipedia for a long time. None of us are newbies, and you are not at all an elder to either of us. We all occasionally make mistakes, and whether we actually are or not in any particular case making one, the possibility of discussion of it without calling it slander is needed to keep our community (and ourselves) honest. --Improv 20:28, 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:
 * totalitarianism is not a "form of government."


 * This article lists forms of government and political systems, according to a series of different ways of categorising them. The systems listed are of course not mutually exclusive, and often have overlappping definitions (for example autocracy, despotism, totalitarianism, monarchy and tyranny).

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)
 * There's a good reason Wikipedia doesn't use itself as a primary source :) Are you arguing that out of editorial consistency the article should group governments described by some as totalitarian with each other, or are you arguing that we should bootstrap our understanding of terms/truth for this article based on what that article says? --Improv 20:56, 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)
 * It is not a form of government because in essense it reflects just one position along one of the characteristics a government may have, and is thus more of a descriptive word than anything else. It says nothing about who has power, how economics work, the justification and specific mechanisms of the state, or similar. If we were to discuss things that might more properly be called forms of government, we find that they tend to tell us a lot more than a single characteristic of how things work (e.g. a Social Democratic state, a consitutional monarchy, theocratic republic, etc). --Improv 21:19, 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)

Cut all the damn jargon.
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.


 * Although I don't think that "typology" is "jargon" but a quite familiar term, it is ridiculous to have it redirect to Weber's ideal-types. So just Be bold and changes the redirect. Although "typology" has nothing complex, I do agree that "totalitarianism is a type of government that..." is more clear, because totalitarianism in itself is not a "typology" (the typology includes democracy, etc.: totalitarianism is a type in a typology, not the typology itself). Lapaz 16:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wrong. I have one of the largest vocabularies of any Wikipedian, and (1) I assure you the word is rarely used by ordinary people; (2) it's confusing the heck out of our readers!


 * I think "typology" is being used as a bludgeon, to hit the reader over the head with the POV(s) that (A) there are no totalitarian regimes, because totalitarianism is not a form of government (as Improv argues below); and that (B) totalitarianism is a questionable concept.


 * I've heard these arguments made for 30 years! Especially from leftists (not criticizing my fellow contributors) who want to distinguish between Communism and Fascism. Conservatives, meanwhile, want to lump them together as "totalitarian twins".


 * What we need to solve this is to have 2 separate articles. One for the term (and calling "totalitarianism" a typology), the other describing and listing totalitarian regimes such as USSR and Nazi Germany.


 * It will strain our abilities to write neutral prose, but I'm sure we can do it if we put our heads together. --Uncle Ed 16:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ed Poor, did you read the comments directed to you a month ago? Your proposal was rejected with good reason a month ago. Read Improv's comment below, Except totalitarianism is also not a form of government -- it's a description someone puts on a type of government, and has little substantive content apart from its single axis. The article you are proposing on "totalitarian regimes" also puts us in the original research realm. Please refrain from creating it. 172 | Talk 17:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't say totalitarianism was a "form of government" but "the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority". And please respond to my other points. --Uncle Ed 17:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Improv, Lapaz, and I have rejected your description of the term "typology" as "jargon." Give our comments some actual consideration. The article is easy enough to read. 172 | Talk 17:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Except totalitarianism is also not a form of government -- it's a description someone puts on a type of government, and has little substantive content apart from its single axis. --Improv 17:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand your comment Improv (and actually agree with you, if you are saying that totalitarianism is a questionable concept). Beside being questionable, various authors do not seem to agree on the nature of totalitarianism itself (notably in the inclusion of (Italian) fascism in it). Why not start by "totalitarianism is a concept used in political science, in an attempt to describe a common nature between nazism and stalinism"? This has the advantage of following Arendt's definition, and is what most people - including political scientists - have in head when thinking "totalitarianism". Criticisms of the notion may then be included. But it seems clear that, in itself, totalitarianism is neither a "typology" (to be such a typology, it would need to distinguish various types of totalitarianism regimes, while the original intent of the concept was to the contrary to think together nazism & stalinism - leaving the question of fascism aside), nor a "form of government" if we follow your well-advised warning against this concept. However, I'm not sure, but your definition immediately above seems to "relativize" (careful, I'm not saying you're relativizing "evil"!!!) a bit too much "totalitarianism": that is, you assume it is not a descriptive concept, but a moral judgment, don't you? This would certainly surprise Hannah Arendt & others authors, who attempted to define "totalitarianism" in contrast with classical tyranny, wouldn't it? And such a definition, contrasted with liberal democracy and tyranny and others ordinary forms of dictature (as you know, Arendt argues that fascism is such a classic form of dictature), entails that totalitarianism is a form of government, doesn't it? A form of government characterized by personality cult, mass media & propaganda, Führerprinzip, one party which takes the control of the state (while, according to Arendt's questionable allegations, fascism keeps in with the traditional respect of the state)... Isn't that a form of government? Isn't stating, as you do, that totalitarianism is not a form of government a way of observing the total failure of this concept as an analytical instrument? If this is the case, should this really be stated in the first sentence of the intro? Again, why not began by a simple "totalitarianism is a concept used in political science, in an attempt to describe a common nature between stalinism & nazism", and then go on with further developments with the notion (as used today) and the many criticisms which can be adressed toward it (excluding fascism and confusing stalinism & nazism together is the most obvious and popular criticism). Lapaz 21:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's questionable, just that it's not a form of government. As a brief analysis of one (or possibly a few) ways a government is, it's fair. I'm simply saying that it is not more cohesive than that -- it just doesn't say enough to be a form of government. As for Stalinist Communism and Fascism, while they may be the two most prominent forms of state that meet the common understanding of being totalitarian, they are by no means the only, and I don't think they're quite *that* essential in defining what is meant. I would be ok with the "totalitarianism as concept" opening, except for the focus on stalinism and nazism, because I think there is actual content to the similarities across some grounds even though these similarities are limited in scope to "means of control" (and possibly effect on society). --Improv 11:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Reading again the intro carefully, it lacks the fundamental personality cult and also this fundamental reference to nazism & stalinism. There is a general tendency on Wikipedia to write abstract introductions which manage not to make use of some fundamental names in an ill-advised attempt for NPOV that just makes it a paragraph of weasel words (as other example, you can refer to black site where for a long time it wasn't even stated in the intro that this term refers to CIA facilities! as if "black site" was an universal ideality floating in the air with no concrete, historical existence - back to totalitarianism, we mustn't forget that this concept was forged to face the appearance of a certain type of regime in the 1930s, which seemed to defy the standard typology used for so long (quickly & incorrectly, monarchy, democracy, tyranny...), and to contrast "tyranny" with "totalitarianism". I think this reference to the 1930s, stalinism & nazism, must be stated in the intro. Too many people seem to forget that the 1930s were a crucial period in the 20th century, and that many concepts were forged to face this inedit situation. Reading also quickly the talk page, there seems that Ed Poor has got a point in one sentence: why do all others forms of governments are not described as "concepts", as if they were assured of "being real"? Are we so sure of this classic typology, especially since the appearance of this "monster concept", totalitarianism? Hasn't the emergence of this new concept put in crisis the whole edifice of political typology? Lapaz 22:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you per chance have the date of the first edition of Brezinsky? Lapaz 22:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

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 &#9742; 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)


 * With all due respect, that last comment was as clear as mud. - Jmabel | Talk 00:02, 3 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)

Commented out text?
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 &#9742; 17:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

172's reversions (bis)
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)


 * Yes, much as I respect 172 (whom I know from the 'old days' of Wikipedia), he does have this distressing habit of reverting. This is not a habit conducive to collaboration.


 * We need to identify what the opposing points of view are, regarding totalitarianism (and regarding the term "totalitarianism").


 * That the term is considered a typology is certain. I don't think anyone's arguing that.


 * That the concept is an invalid one is advanced by user:Improv above, but he is not a quotable source. His opinion is worth nothing, just as mine is worth nothing. (sorry, buddy! ;-) We must cite sources who object to the concept, and explain their reasons, such as:
 * Fascism is right-wing, Communism and Socialism are left-wing; there is nothing in common between the two wings. This is proved (in their view) by the fact that the most powerful and famous fascist and Communist regimes went to war.


 * That the concept is a valid (and useful) one, is advanced by (mostly) Western writers who also advocated "freedom" (however defined) or exalted "liberal democracy". We need to explain why these writers cherish the concept, such as:
 * They find it a useful handle to 'lump together' regimes which are (in their view) "based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism)"

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)

Typology vs. form of government
I myself am neutral on whether (1) the word "totalitarianism" is a typology or (2) Totalitarianism is a form of government.


 * the rise of Nazi Germany and the catastrophic fate of European Jewry at its hands, the rise of Soviet Stalinism ... Arendt insisted that these manifestations of political evil could not be understood as mere extensions in scale or scope of already existing precedents, but rather that they represented a completely 'novel form of government', one built upon terror and ideological fiction.

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)

How far to roll back
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! :-)
 * Of course! Lapaz 18:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Pluralism
Cut from article:


 * In this sense, these regimes may exhibit pluralism through the involvement of several groups in the political process.

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)
 * Ed, don't you remember when I gave you the source for that line earlier!??? You're driving me nuts here! I'll add the cite to the article. 172 | Talk 03:17, 29 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)


 * I rm no source! That's not in my habits, not without any discussion at least. Lapaz 01:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts
172 wrote:


 * Ed Poor, may I please discuss Lapaz's changes with him, without having to go through you. I still have questions about the additions. Thanks.

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)

Split
Sorry, just couldn't wait. I have split the article into:
 * Totalitarianism - history and meaning of the concept
 * Totalitarian regime - Fascist and/or Communist regimes which appear to exemplify the concept

Please help expand the latter! --Uncle Ed 14:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No way !!!! I will reverse it immediately. This is an unnecessary fork which will duplicate the information on both articles. The debate must be solved here, not duplicated on the other page. Lapaz 15:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please leave it for a week, and see if it helps. After that, I'm content to merge the info back.


 * This sort of division has worked many times in the past, as with Augusto Pinochet. In May 2004, I split out (or"spun off") the Chilean coup of 1973, and that broke the deadlock in a lengthy edit war. Please bear with me, and give this a chance. --Uncle Ed 15:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Pinochet is not a valid analogy. Totalitarianism is a concept which we already have enough trouble in defining on this page, no need to complicate the matter by creating a POV page on totalitarian regime. What is a "totalitarian regime"? A regime that obeys to criterias of totalitarianism. Let's first define this concept as used in political science. By creating a specific, totalitarian regime article, you are opening up the Pandora's box and transform this into a bloggers' fight about which and which were or weren't totalitarian. Almost any regime could be qualified "totalitarian" if you include everyone's single different POV. One of the best way to think about this concept of totalitarianism is to oppose it to the "free world". But, very quickly, intellectuals from the free world have returned it against this alleged "free world" (Theodor Adorno & Max Horkheimer, Guy Debord, Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze are only a few of them). I think we are best off if we limit ourselves to dealing with the problems here, with the original definition of totalitarianism which was used in a historical context to deal with fascism, nazism & stalinism, and then let everyone have his own conclusions about if Pol Pot's regime was totalitarian, if modern China is totalitarian, if Pinochet's or Videla's regime were totalitarian, if the Colonia Dignidad in Chile was a totalitarian cult, or if America itself is totalitarian as some would not hesitate in arguing. The problem is that, once you go beyond the original historical formulation of the concept and its application to fascism (by definition Italian), nazism (by definition German) and stalinism (by definition Russian) &mdash; although of course they might have influenced other forms of fascism or communism; Albania for ex. was stalinist for a long time &mdash; "totalitarianism" becomes a pejorative word, just as "fascist" when used as an epithet. Wikipedia's aim should be to explain the historical creation of this concept, its implications, but certainly not to qualify so and so as totalitarian. Again, if you insist on creating this article, some fanatics will say Israel is a totalitarian regime, others that the current PA lead by Hamas is totalitarian, others that Syria or (yesterday) Saddam's Iraq was totalitarian (today Iran's theocracy), and finally inevitably some anti-Americans will reverse this against the Bush administration. This is not serious at all, and is best left over to the blogsphere. Lapaz 15:54, 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 How to break up a page. --Uncle Ed 16:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no need to "experiment". Breaking a page is useful if we're dealing with two separate topics or a too long page. This page is not too long, and they are not "separate" topics. Why don't you first try making a section in this article named "Totalitarian regimes", and where we could list them. I've warned you about the Pandora's box, don't say later I didn't... Concerning sources, I've just provided you with 4 sources of important, non-communist authors, who have qualified the "free world" as akin "totalitarian" regimes. This includes all modern industrialized countries, i.e. the US and European countries. Read the introduction of Adorno & Horkheimer The Dialectics of Enlightenment (1947), you will see that he compares US society to Nazi Germany. Lapaz 16:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I like all the souces you've mentioned. I think it's about time we opened up Wikipedia articles on political points of view a bit.


 * We need to know Which authors criticize Which regimes for being What way. I'd love to see a lengthy critique of America seen as totalitarian (or fascist). If it's written clearly and neutrally, a reader could tell at a glance whether the author was just name-calling or was really making a point.
 * For example, an entertainer says, "Bush is a Nazi"). We go to the list of their reasons (which might be the empty set ;-) and decide each for himself if the entertainer is spot on, or should Shut up and sing.


 * I think the Definition of totalitarianism and the List of totalitarian regimes are different enough to justify separate articles, but if I'm reverted again I'll "go along" (see Consenus). But this slows things down, because I have to watch out for the 3RR rule when 172 'reverts all my changes'.


 * In any case I appreciate your willingness to discuss the matter. Cheers. :-) --Uncle Ed 16:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hannah Arendt and Gentile
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:


 * "The term, employed in the writings of the philosopher Giovanni Gentile, was popularized in the 20th century by the Italian fascists under Benito Mussolini. Gentile ghostwrote Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism (1931), which used the term "statolatry" (formed on idolatry) and "totalitarianism". The original meaning of the word as described by Mussolini and Gentile, was a society in which the main ideology of the state had influence, if not power, over most of its citizens. According to them, thanks to modern technologies like radio and the printing press, which the state could and probably would use to spread its ideology, most modern nations would naturally become totalitarian in the above stated sense.


 * While originally referring to an 'all-embracing, total state,' the label has been applied to a wide variety of regimes and orders of rule in a critical sense. Karl Popper, in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945) and The Poverty of Historicism (1961) developed an influential critique of totalitarianism: in both works, he contrasted the "open society" of liberal democracy with totalitarianism, and argued that the latter is grounded in the belief that history moves toward an immutable future, in accord with knowable laws. During the Cold War period, the term gained renewed currency, especially following the publication of Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951).


 * 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."

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)


 * I tried to rearrange things so that they make better sense, but it's tough going. Basically it still feels like "someone" is trying to say that "there is no such thing as totalitarianism" or that "there are no totalitarian regimes". I presume this is to deflect attention away from the evils of Italian and German fascism & global Communism.


 * When we complete the division of the two articles, Totalitarianism (about the term) and Totalitarian regimes (about oppression in totalitarian countries) one could be a section of the other. It's just easier to have them separate while developing them, because 'certain parties' have had a history of reverting to their own version - which deters collaboration. --Uncle Ed 20:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Like editing in a blender
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)


 * I think the problem is a fairly simple one. Most supporters of communism dislike having anything made clear about it. They don't want anyone to compare the "ideals" of communism with the historical reality. So they prefer confusion to clarity.


 * An encyclopedia's goal is diametrically opposed to such people's goal. We here at Wikipedia want to clarify what communism is, what it advocates, what it's done, etc. Including "what has been done in its name". 172 opposes clarity. I favor it. I hope we have enough "political support" for clarity.


 * We can still be neutral about whether communism's goals and methods are good/evil. But I don't think we should take a vote on whether articles mentioning communism should be clear or not. We have a mandate to be clear. --Uncle Ed 15:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

List of issues in contention
Please feel free to add to this list and to start a section to try to reach consensus on any of these issues.
 * Whether to use the word "typology" in the lead sentence
 * Whether to link to the article totalitarian regime
 * Whether to mention and discuss The Black Book of Communism
 * Whether to list single-party state and personality cult as characteristics of totalitarian regimes (deleted by 172)
 * Whether to add a reference to this statement: "Critics of the concept contend that the term lacks explanatory power. They argue that governments which may be classified as totalitarian often lack characteristics said to be associated with the term. They may not be as monolithic as they appear from the outside, if they incorporate several groups, such as the army, political leaders, industrialists, which compete for power and influence" which would be: "See for example Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem, chapter IX on the Reich's deportations. Functionalists in particular have argued in favor of this thesis." (deleted by 172)
 * Whether to include the sentence "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 (deleted by 172).
 * Whether to try to start a section describing Hannah Arendt's thesis (IMO, the most famous and one of the first philosopher describing totalitarianism - see subsection below for proposed text)
 * Whether to include as bibliographical references the following books: Bruno Rizzi, La Bureaucratisation du monde (The Bureaucratisation of the World) (1939) and Carl Schmitt, Die Diktatur (1928) (both deleted by 172)
 * Economic totalitarianism. Whether to delete or not this article.

Hannah Arendt ?
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.'"


 * This strikes me as an accurate summary of Arendt's views; Arendt is one of the most important writers on the topic; what is the objection to restoring this? - Jmabel | Talk 04:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Typology
IMO not accurate enough for reasons explained above. Lapaz 20:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I find this word, in this context, more confusing than illuminating. - Jmabel | Talk 04:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Link to totalitarian regime
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)


 * What, briefly, is the purpose for having these as two separate articles? Clearly, I would think, if both articles exist they should be mutually linked. - Jmabel | Talk 04:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Black Book of Communism
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)


 * Certainly a well-researched book, but I would hope we would all agree that it is one written with an agenda. What exactly about it do you want to say here? - Jmabel | Talk 04:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously. I wasn't the one who wrote the passage on it, but it seemed reasonable. Lapaz 15:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, a great catalogue of Nazi and capitalist attempts to discredit Communism. Sickening really...

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Yea, like communism needed help being discredited, it did a great job doing it itself. And what is the difference between communism and Nazism?  The Nazis had a slightly better fashion sense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amcalabrese (talk • contribs) 23:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Single-party state
Obvious characteristic of totalitarianism. Must be included. Lapaz 20:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly should be mentioned: I've never heard of a totalitarian state that was not single-party. But should be cited explicitly. - Jmabel | Talk 04:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Personality cult
Obvious characteristic of totalitarianism. Must be included. Lapaz 20:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this necessarily comes with the territory (though I can't think of any exceptions). Again, I'd expect to see it cited for, I don't imagine that is too hard; conversely, I'd be very interested in seeing a citation describing a particulary regime as totalitarian that does not involve a cult of personality. - Jmabel | Talk 04:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Gentile and statolatry
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)


 * Certainly should be cited as the origin of the term. Certainly we should explain that the term evolved away from Gentile's meaning. - Jmabel | Talk 04:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Bibliographical references
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)


 * I have no opinion here: haven't read them. I think the burden is on the side of the person who wants to include them. What is the relevance of each? In particular, 1928 pre-dates widespread use of this concept, what is the relevance. - Jmabel | Talk 04:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with Rizzi, but he clearly is arguing a totalitarian similarity between Fascism & Stalinism. I'm more familiar with Carl Schmitt, who was a Nazi law theorist, who attempted to justify the Nazi rule in Die Diktatur. His work has recently been read against him by such people as Jacques Derrida, Giorgio Agamben, Antonio Negri, etc., and provides an important theoretical framework to understand totalitarian rule (see in particular Agamben's discussion of the "state of exception"). Lapaz 15:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So, if you are "not familiar with Rizzi", how can you say he "must be included"? - Jmabel | Talk 16:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Because I think that, seeing the time period, the person & the arguments, his views is pretty representative of a certain type of analysis of totalitarianism. It is no wonder that trotskyists were quick on putting together Stalinism & Nazism. However, if you &mdash; or others &mdash; feel it is biased to include him, I will certainly not argue much in favor of him &mdash; as I haven't read him, and certainly my point is not in arguing in favor of trotskyists! :) Lapaz 02:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Economic totalitarianism
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)


 * Jeez. One quotation from Friedman; no sign that he ever developed the concept. I'd say "No article potential." If we can find a way to merge Friedman's remark usefully here, let's; but it may be hard to do without a bit of conjecture as to what he meant. Friedman seems to be remarking that the average citizen of certain fascist or militarist states (not normally described as "totalitarian". but which he is calling "politically totalitarian") retained some economic freedoms that were denied to the average citizen of the Stalinist USSR and Nazi Germany. He seems to be saying (but not in so many words) that what distinguishes totalitarian states from merely politically oppressive states is that totalitarian states clamp down on the economy, which he calls "economic totalitariansm". Thin gruel, indeed. - Jmabel | Talk 04:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid
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)


 * I think this is really a stretch. If you can find citable sources describing the apartheid regime as "totalitarian", I suppose that would be worth mentioning in the article, but this as your own extrapolation it certainly does not belong there. - Jmabel | Talk 08:16, 5 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)


 * Again, it is not a matter of whether "one can" but whether reliable sources do. - Jmabel | Talk 06:26, 22 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)


 * Possibly germane: Hannah Arendt (The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1966, p. 308–9). "…even Mussolini, who was so fond of the term 'totalitarian state', did not attempt to establish a full-fledged totalitarian regime and contented himself with dictatorship and one-party rule. Similar non-totalitarian dictatorships sprang up in pre-war Romania, Poland, the Baltic States, Hungary, Portugal and Franco's Spain." They then go on to discuss the forces in Italy and elsewhere that frustrated totalitarian ambitions. (quoted in Robert Bideleux and Ian Jeffries, A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change, Routledge, 1998, ISBN 0-415-1611-8, p. 474.) - Jmabel | Talk 21:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky
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)
 * This article needs closer watching. The Chomsky smear came in this recent series of edits. The other edits in the series were just as unhelpful as the Chomsky smear. 172 | Talk 08:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Opposing Labour Unions
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.  Felix Felix talk 07:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)