Home  ›  what factors led to the rise of totalitarian governments such as fascism and communism in europe

what factors led to the rise of totalitarian governments such as fascism and communism in europe

Written By Thursday, April 7, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Form of regime and political system

Totalitarianism is a grade of government and political arrangement that prohibits all opposition parties, outlaws private and group opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of command and regulation over public and private life. It is regarded as the most extreme and consummate form of authoritarianism. In totalitarian states, political power is often held past autocrats, such as dictators and absolute monarchs, who employ all-encompassing campaigns in which propaganda is broadcast by state-controlled mass media in club to control the citizenry.[2] It remains a useful word only the old 1950s theory was considered to exist outdated past the 1980s,[3] and is defunct amid scholars.[4] The proposed concept gained prominent influence in Western anti-communist and McCarthyist political discourse during the Common cold War era as a tool to convert pre-Earth War 2 anti-fascism into post-war anti-communism.[5] [6] [vii] [8] [ix]

As a political ideology in itself, totalitarianism is a distinctly modernist phenomenon, and it has very circuitous historical roots. Philosopher Karl Popper traced its roots to Plato, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel'due south conception of the land, and the political philosophy of Karl Marx,[10] although Popper's formulation of totalitarianism has been criticized in academia, and remains highly controversial.[11] [12] Other philosophers and historians such as Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer trace the origin of totalitarian doctrines to the Age of Enlightenment, peculiarly to the anthropocentrist idea that "Human has become the master of the world, a main unbound by whatever links to nature, gild, and history."[xiii]

In the 20th century, the idea of absolute country power was offset developed past Italian Fascists, and meantime in Federal republic of germany past a jurist and Nazi academic named Carl Schmitt during the Weimar Republic in the 1920s. Benito Mussolini, the founder of Italian Fascism, defined fascism as such: "Everything within the country, nothing outside the land, nil against the country." Schmitt used the term Totalstaat (lit. 'Total state') in his influential 1927 work titled The Concept of the Political, which described the legal basis of an all-powerful country.[fourteen]

Totalitarian regimes are unlike from other disciplinarian regimes, as the latter denotes a country in which the single power holder, usually an individual dictator, a committee, a military junta, or an otherwise pocket-sized grouping of political elites, monopolizes political ability.[15] A totalitarian authorities may effort to control virtually all aspects of social life, including the economy, the education system, arts, science, and the private lives and morals of citizens through the use of an elaborate ideology.[16] It can too mobilize the whole population in pursuit of its goals.[15]

Definition [edit]

Totalitarian regimes are often characterized by extreme political repression, to a greater extent than those of disciplinarian regimes, under an undemocratic authorities, widespread personality cultism around the person or the group which is in power, accented control over the economy, large-scale censorship and mass surveillance systems, limited or non-existent freedom of movement (the freedom to leave the state), and the widespread usage of state terrorism. Other aspects of a totalitarian regime include the extensive use of internment camps, an omnipresent secret police, practices of religious persecution or racism, the imposition of theocratic rule or state atheism, the common use of expiry penalties and show trials, fraudulent elections (if they took identify), the possible possession of weapons of mass destruction, a potential for state-sponsored mass murders and genocides, and the possibility of engaging in a war, or colonialism confronting other countries, which is ofttimes followed past annexation of their territories. Historian Robert Conquest describes a totalitarian state equally a state which recognizes no limit on its authority in whatsoever sphere of public or private life and extends that authority to any length it considers feasible.[2]

Totalitarianism is contrasted with authoritarianism. Co-ordinate to Radu Cinpoes, an authoritarian state is "only concerned with political power, and as long as it is not contested it gives society a certain degree of liberty."[xv] Cinpoes writes that authoritarianism "does non attempt to change the world and human nature."[fifteen] In contrast, Richard Pipes stated that the officially proclaimed ideology "penetrating into the deepest reaches of societal construction, and the totalitarian government seeks to completely control the thoughts and actions of its citizens."[sixteen] Carl Joachim Friedrich wrote that "[a] totalist ideology, a party reinforced by a hush-hush law, and monopolistic control of industrial mass gild are the three features of totalitarian regimes that distinguish them from other autocracies."[xv]

Academia and historiography [edit]

The academic field of Sovietology after World War Two and during the Cold War was dominated by the "totalitarian model" of the Soviet Union,[17] stressing the absolute nature of Joseph Stalin'southward ability. The "totalitarian model" was first outlined in the 1950s by Carl Joachim Friedrich, who posited that the Soviet Union and other Communist states were "totalitarian" systems, with the personality cult and almost unlimited powers of the "great leader" such every bit Stalin.[18] The "revisionist schoolhouse" beginning in the 1960s focused on relatively autonomous institutions which might influence policy at the higher level.[19] Matt Lenoe described the "revisionist school" as representing those who "insisted that the old image of the Soviet Wedlock as a totalitarian state bent on world domination was oversimplified or just apparently wrong. They tended to exist interested in social history and to fence that the Communist Political party leadership had had to adjust to social forces."[20] These of "revisionist school" such as J. Arch Getty and Lynne Viola challenged the "totalitarian model" approach to Communist history, which was considered to be outdated by the 1980s and for the mail-Stalinist era in particular,[3] and were most active in the one-time Communist states' athenaeum, particularly the State Archive of the Russia related to the Soviet Union.[19] [21]

According to John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, the historiography is characterized by a split between "traditionalists" and "revisionists." "Traditionalists" characterize themselves as objective reporters of an declared totalitarian nature of communism and Communist states. They are criticized by their opponents as being anti-communist, even fascist, in their eagerness on continuing to focus on the issues of the Cold State of war. Alternative characterizations for traditionalists include "anti-communist", "conservative", "Draperite" (afterwards Theodore Draper), "orthodox", and "right-wing."[22] Norman Markowitz, a prominent "revisionist", referred to them as "reactionaries", "right-fly romantics", and "triumphalist" who belong to the "HUAC school of CPUSA scholarship."[22] "Revisionists", characterized past Haynes and Klehr as historical revisionists, are more numerous and boss academic institutions and learned journals.[22] A suggested culling formulation is "new historians of American communism", but that has not caught on considering these historians describe themselves as unbiased and scholarly, contrasting their work to the work of anti-communist "traditionalists", whom they term biased and unscholarly.[22]

Co-ordinate to William Zimmerman, "the Soviet Union has changed essentially. Our knowledge of the Soviet Union has inverse besides. We all know that the traditional paradigm no longer satisfies, despite several efforts, primarily in the early 1960s (the directed lodge, totalitarianism without terror, the mobilization system) to articulate an acceptable variant. Nosotros have come up to realize that models which were, in effect, offshoots of totalitarian models practise not provide expert approximations of mail-Stalinist reality."[3] Co-ordinate to Michael Scott Christofferson, "Arendt's reading of the postal service-Stalin USSR can be seen every bit an endeavour to distance her work from 'the Cold War misuse of the concept.'"[23]

Historian John Connelly wrote that totalitarianism is a useful word but that the quondam 1950s theory about it is defunct among scholars. Connelly wrote: "The give-and-take is as functional now equally it was fifty years ago. It ways the kind of regime that existed in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the Soviet satellites, Communist Mainland china, and maybe Fascist Italy, where the discussion originated. ... Who are we to tell Václav Havel or Adam Michnik that they were fooling themselves when they perceived their rulers as totalitarian? Or for that thing whatever of the millions of onetime subjects of Soviet-type rule who use the local equivalents of the Czech totalita to describe the systems they lived under before 1989? It is a useful give-and-take and everyone knows what it means as a full general referent. Bug arise when people confuse the useful descriptive term with the old 'theory' from the 1950s."[iv] The totalitarian model perspective of equating Nazi Frg and the Soviet Marriage under Stalin is considered to exist long discredited.[24]

Politics [edit]

Early usage [edit]

The notion that totalitarianism is total political ability which is exercised by the land was formulated in 1923 by Giovanni Amendola, who described Italian Fascism as a system which was fundamentally different from conventional dictatorships.[16] The term was later assigned a positive meaning in the writings of Giovanni Gentile, Italy's nigh prominent philosopher and leading theorist of fascism. He used the term totalitario to refer to the structure and goals of the new land which was to provide the "total representation of the nation and total guidance of national goals."[25] He described totalitarianism as a social club in which the ideology of the state had influence, if not ability, over most of its citizens.[26] According to Benito Mussolini, this system politicizes everything spiritual and human: "Everything within the land, cypher outside the land, nothing against the land."[16] [27]

Ane of the offset people to use the term totalitarianism in the English language was the Austrian author Franz Borkenau in his 1938 book The Communist International, in which he commented that it united the Soviet and German language dictatorships more than it divided them.[28] The label totalitarian was twice affixed to Nazi Germany during Winston Churchill's oral communication of 5 Oct 1938, before the Firm of Commons in opposition to the Munich Agreement, by which France and Great Great britain consented to Nazi Federal republic of germany'south annexation of the Sudetenland.[29] Churchill was and then a backbencher MP representing the Epping constituency. In a radio address ii weeks subsequently, Churchill again employed the term, this time applying the concept to "a Communist or a Nazi tyranny."[30]

José María Gil-Robles y Quiñones, the leader of the historic Spanish reactionary party called the Castilian Confederation of the Democratic Right (CEDA),[31] declared his intention to "give Spain a true unity, a new spirit, a totalitarian polity" and went on to say: "Democracy is not an end but a means to the conquest of the new state. When the time comes, either parliament submits or we will eliminate it."[32] General Francisco Franco was adamant not to have competing correct-fly parties in Kingdom of spain and CEDA was dissolved in April 1937. Later, Gil-Robles went into exile.[33]

George Orwell made frequent use of the word totalitarian and its cognates in multiple essays published in 1940, 1941 and 1942. In his essay "Why I Write", Orwell wrote: "The Spanish war and other events in 1936–37 turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I empathize information technology." He feared that future totalitarian regimes could exploit technological advances in surveillance and mass media in order to establish a permanent and worldwide dictatorship which would be incapable of ever being overthrown, writing: "If you lot want a vision of the future, imagine a kick stamping on a human face — forever."[34]

During a 1945 lecture series entitled "The Soviet Bear on on the Western Earth" and published as a book in 1946, the British historian East. H. Carr wrote: "The trend away from individualism and towards totalitarianism is everywhere unmistakable" and that Marxism–Leninism was by far the most successful blazon of totalitarianism equally proved by Soviet industrial growth and the Ruddy Ground forces'south role in defeating Germany. According to Carr, merely the "blind and incurable" could ignore the trend towards totalitarianism.[35]

In The Open Social club and Its Enemies (1945) and The Poverty of Historicism (1961), Karl Popper articulated an influential critique of totalitarianism. In both works, Popper assorted the "open up social club" of liberal democracy with totalitarianism and posited that the latter is grounded in the belief that history moves toward an immutable future in accordance with knowable laws.[ citation needed ]

Cold State of war [edit]

In The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt posited that Nazi and Communist regimes were new forms of regime and non merely updated versions of the old tyrannies. According to Arendt, the source of the mass appeal of totalitarian regimes is their ideology which provides a comforting and single answer to the mysteries of the by, present and future. For Nazism, all history is the history of race struggle and for Marxism–Leninism all history is the history of class struggle. In one case that premise is accustomed, all actions of the state can be justified by entreatment to nature or the police force of history, justifying their establishment of authoritarian state apparatus.[36]

In addition to Arendt, many scholars from a variety of academic backgrounds and ideological positions have closely examined totalitarianism. Among the nearly noted commentators on totalitarianism are Raymond Aron, Lawrence Aronsen, Franz Borkenau, Karl Dietrich Bracher, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Conquest, Carl Joachim Friedrich, Eckhard Jesse, Leopold Labedz, Walter Laqueur, Claude Lefort, Juan Linz, Richard Löwenthal, Karl Popper, Richard Pipes, Leonard Schapiro and Adam Ulam. Each one of these described totalitarianism in slightly different ways, simply they all agreed that totalitarianism seeks to mobilize entire populations in back up of an official party ideology and is intolerant of activities that are not directed towards the goals of the political party, entailing repression or state control of the business, labour unions, non-profit organizations, religious organizations and minor political parties. At the same time, many scholars from a variety of academic backgrounds and ideological positions criticized the theorists of totalitarianism. Among the most noted were Louis Althusser, Benjamin Barber, Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Jean-Paul Sartre. They idea that totalitarianism was connected to Western ideologies and associated with evaluation rather than analysis. The concept became prominent in the Western earth's anti-communist political soapbox during the Cold War era as a tool to convert pre-war anti-fascism into postwar anti-communism.[5] [6] [seven] [8] [9]

Carl Joachin Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski (pictured) popularized the concept of totalitarianism, alongside Hannah Arendt.[four]

In 1956, the political scientists Carl Joachim Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski were primarily responsible for expanding the usage of the term in university social scientific discipline and professional research, reformulating information technology every bit a prototype for the Soviet Matrimony besides as fascist regimes.[37] Friedrich and Brzezinski wrote that a totalitarian organisation has the post-obit six mutually supportive and defining characteristics:[37] [ page needed ]

  1. Elaborate guiding ideology.
  2. Single mass party, typically led past a dictator.
  3. System of terror, using such instruments equally violence and hole-and-corner police.
  4. Monopoly on weapons.
  5. Monopoly on the means of advice.
  6. Primal direction and control of the economy through state planning.

In the book titled Democracy and Totalitarianism (1968), French analyst Raymond Aron outlined five criteria for a government to be considered equally totalitarian:[38] [ folio needed ]

  1. A 1-party land where 1 party has a monopoly on all political activity.
  2. A country ideology upheld by the ruling party that is given status equally the only authority.
  3. State information monopoly that controls mass media for distribution of official truth.
  4. State controlled economic system with major economic entities under the command of the state.
  5. Ideological terror that turns economic or professional actions into crimes. Violators are exposed to prosecution and to ideological persecution.

According to this view, totalitarian regimes in Federal republic of germany, Italy, and the Soviet Spousal relationship had initial origins in the anarchy that followed in the wake of World War I and allowed totalitarian movements to seize control of the regime while the sophistication of modernistic weapons and communications enabled them to finer establish what Friedrich and Brzezinski chosen a "totalitarian dictatorship."[37] [ page needed ] Some social scientists take criticized Friedrich and Brzezinski's totalitarian approach, commenting that the Soviet system, both as a political and as a social entity, was in fact better understood in terms of interest groups, competing elites, or even in form terms, using the concept of the nomenklatura equally a vehicle for a new ruling class (new class). These critics posit that there is evidence of the widespread dispersion of power, at least in the implementation of policy, among sectoral and regional authorities. For some followers of this pluralist arroyo, this was testify of the ability of the authorities to adapt to include new demands; even so, proponents of the totalitarian model stated that the failure of the system to survive showed non only its inability to conform but the mere formality of supposed popular participation.[39]

German historian Karl Dietrich Bracher, whose work is primarily concerned with Nazi Deutschland, posited that the "totalitarian typology" as developed by Friedrich and Brzezinski is an excessively inflexible model and failed to consider the "revolutionary dynamic" that for Bracher is at the heart of totalitarianism.[40] Bracher posited that the essence of totalitarianism is the total claim to control and remake all aspects of society combined with an all-embracing ideology, the value on disciplinarian leadership and the pretence of the common identity of state and society which distinguished the totalitarian "closed" understanding of politics from the "open up" autonomous agreement.[twoscore] Unlike the Friedrich and Brzezinski definition, Bracher said that totalitarian regimes did not require a single leader and could function with a collective leadership which led the American historian Walter Laqueur to posit that Bracher's definition seemed to fit reality better than the Friedrich–Brzezinski definition.[41] Bracher'south typologies came under attack from Werner Conze and other historians, who felt that Bracher "lost sight of the historical cloth" and used "universal, ahistorical concepts."[42]

In his 1951 volume The True Believer, Eric Hoffer posited that mass movements such as fascism, Nazism and Stalinism had a mutual trait in picturing Western democracies and their values as decadent, with people "as well soft, too pleasance-loving and too selfish" to sacrifice for a college crusade, which for them implies an inner moral and biological decay. Hoffer added that those movements offered the prospect of a glorious future to frustrated people, enabling them to notice a refuge from the lack of personal accomplishments in their individual beingness. The individual is then assimilated into a compact collective body and "fact-proof screens from reality" are established.[43] This opinion may be connected to a religious fear for Communists. Paul Hanebrink has posited that many European Christians started to fear Communist regimes subsequently the ascent of Hitler, commenting: "For many European Christians, Catholic and Protestant alike, the new postwar 'culture war' crystallized as a struggle against communism. Across interwar Europe, Christians demonized the Communist regime in Russian federation as the embodiment of secular materialism and a militarized threat to Christian social and moral order."[44] For Hanebrink, Christians saw Communist regimes as a threat to their moral gild and hoped to lead European nations back to their Christian roots by creating an anti-totalitarian census, which divers Europe in the early Cold State of war.[45]

Saladdin Ahmed criticized Friedrich and Brzezinski's volume every bit lending itself to anti-communist propaganda "more easily"; for Saladdin, "[p]hilosophically, their business relationship of totalitarianism is invalid because it stipulates 'criteria' that corporeality to an abstracted clarification of Stalin's USSR, rendering the notion predeterministic" by positing that "all totalitarian regimes take 'an official ideology,' 'a single mass party led typically by one man,' 'a system of terroristic police control,' a party-controlled means of mass communication and armed forces, and a centralized economy." According to Saladdin, this account "tin can exist invalidated quite straightforwardly, namely by determining whether a government that lacks any one of the criteria could withal be called totalitarian. If so, then the criterion in question is false, indicating the invalidity of their account." Saladdin cited the military dictatorship of Chile equally a totalitarian example that would not fit under Friedrich and Brzezinski'southward defining feature, commenting that "information technology would be cool to exempt it from the class of totalitarian regimes for that reason alone."[23]

Post–Cold War [edit]

Isaias Afwerki (right), the insubordinate-leader-turned-president who has ruled Eritrea equally a totalitarian dictatorship since the 1990s[46]

Laure Neumayer posited that "despite the disputes over its heuristic value and its normative assumptions, the concept of totalitarianism made a vigorous return to the political and academic fields at the finish of the Cold War."[47] In the 1990s, François Furet made a comparative analysis[48] and used the term totalitarian twins to link Nazism and Stalinism.[49] [50] [51] Eric Hobsbawm criticized Furet for his temptation to stress a common ground betwixt 2 systems of different ideological roots.[52]

In the field of Soviet history, the totalitarian concept has been disparaged by the "revisionist schoolhouse" historians, some of whose more prominent members were Sheila Fitzpatrick, J. Arch Getty, Jerry F. Hough, William McCagg, and Robert West. Thurston.[53] Although their individual interpretations differ, the revisionists say that the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin was institutionally weak, the level of terror was much exaggerated, and to the extent that it occurred, it reflected the weaknesses rather than the strengths of the Soviet land.[53] Fitzpatrick posited that the Stalinist purges in the Soviet Wedlock provided an increased social mobility and therefore a chance for a better life.[54] [55] In the case of East Germany, Eli Rubin posited that Due east Germany was not a totalitarian state but rather a society shaped past the confluence of unique economic and political circumstances interacting with the concerns of ordinary citizens.[56]

Writing in 1987, Walter Laqueur posited that the revisionists in the field of Soviet history were guilty of confusing popularity with morality and of making highly embarrassing and not very convincing arguments confronting the concept of the Soviet Spousal relationship every bit a totalitarian country.[57] Laqueur stated that the revisionists' arguments with regard to Soviet history were highly similar to the arguments fabricated past Ernst Nolte regarding German history.[57] For Laqueur, concepts such every bit modernization were inadequate tools for explaining Soviet history while totalitarianism was not.[58] Laqueur's argument has been criticized by modern "revisionist school" historians such as Paul Buhle, who said that Laqueur wrongly equates Cold State of war revisionism with the German revisionism; the latter reflected a "revanchist, military-minded bourgeois nationalism."[59] Moreover, Michael Parenti and James Petras have suggested that the totalitarianism concept has been politically employed and used for anti-communist purposes. Parenti has also analysed how "left anti-communism" attacked the Soviet Spousal relationship during the Cold War.[sixty] For Petras, the CIA funded the Congress for Cultural Freedom in order to assail "Stalinist anti-totalitarianism."[61] Into the 21st century, Enzo Traverso has attacked the creators of the concept of totalitarianism every bit having invented it to designate the enemies of the Due west.[62]

According to some scholars, calling Joseph Stalin totalitarian instead of disciplinarian has been asserted to be a arty but specious excuse for Western self-interest, only equally surely every bit the counterclaim that allegedly debunking the totalitarian concept may be a high-sounding simply specious alibi for Russian self-interest. For Domenico Losurdo, totalitarianism is a polysemic concept with origins in Christian theology and applying it to the political sphere requires an operation of abstract schematism which makes use of isolated elements of historical reality to identify fascist regimes and the Soviet Wedlock in the dock together, serving the anti-communism of Common cold War-era intellectuals rather than reflecting intellectual research.[63] Other scholars, among them F. William Engdahl, Sheldon Wolin, and Slavoj Žižek, take linked totalitarianism to commercialism and liberalism, and used concepts such as inverted totalitarianism,[64] totalitarian capitalism,[65] and totalitarian democracy.[66] [67] [68]

In Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism?: Five Interventions in the (Mis)Employ of a Notion, Žižek wrote that "[t]he liberating result" of Full general Augusto Pinochet's arrest "was infrequent", as "the fright of Pinochet dissipated, the spell was broken, the taboo subjects of torture and disappearances became the daily grist of the news media; the people no longer just whispered, but openly spoke nigh prosecuting him in Chile itself."[69] Saladdin Ahmed cited Hannah Arendt as stating that "the Soviet Union can no longer be called totalitarian in the strict sense of the term after Stalin'south death", writing that "this was the example in Full general August Pinochet's Chile, yet it would be absurd to exempt it from the class of totalitarian regimes for that reason alone." Saladdin posited that while Chile under Pinochet had no "official ideology", there was one "behind the scenes", namely that "none other than Milton Friedman, the godfather of neoliberalism and the most influential teacher of the Chicago Boys, was Pinochet's adviser." In this sense, Saladdin criticized the totalitarian concept for being practical only to "opposing ideologies" and non to liberalism.[23]

In the early on 2010s, Richard Shorten, Vladimir Tismăneanu, and Aviezer Tucker posited that totalitarian ideologies can take dissimilar forms in different political systems merely all of them focus on utopianism, scientism, or political violence. They posit that both Nazism and Stalinism emphasized the part of specialization in modern societies and saw polymathy as a matter of the past, and likewise stated to accept statistical scientific support for their claims, which led to strict upstanding control of culture, psychological violence, and persecution of entire groups.[70] [71] [72] Their arguments have been criticized by other scholars due to their partiality and anachronism. Juan Francisco Fuentes treats totalitarianism as an "invented tradition" and the use of the notion of "modern despotism" equally a "contrary anachronism"; for Fuentes, "the anachronistic use of totalitarian/totalitarianism involves the will to reshape the by in the prototype and likeness of the present."[73]

Other studies endeavor to link modern technological changes with totalitarianism. According to Shoshana Zuboff, economic pressures of modernistic surveillance capitalism are driving the intensification of connection and monitoring online with spaces of social life becoming open to saturation by corporate actors, directed at the making of profit and/or the regulation of action.[74] Toby Ord plant Orwell'southward fears of totalitarianism as a notable early on precursor to modern notions of anthropogenic existential gamble, the concept that a future ending could permanently destroy the potential of Earth-originating intelligent life due in part to technological changes, creating a permanent technological dystopia. Ord said that Orwell's writings show his concern was genuine rather than just a throwaway part of the fictional plot of Nineteen 80-Four. In 1949, Orwell wrote that "[a] ruling class which could guard against (four previously enumerated sources of risk) would remain in power permanently."[75] That same year, Bertrand Russell wrote that "modern techniques accept made possible a new intensity of governmental control, and this possibility has been exploited very fully in totalitarian states."[76]

In the late 2010s, The Economist has described Cathay'south developed Social Credit Arrangement under Chinese Communist Political party general secretary Eleven Jinping's administration, to screen and rank its citizens based on their personal beliefs, every bit totalitarian.[77] Opponents of Red china'south ranking organisation say that it is intrusive and is just another mode for a one-party state to control the population. The New York Times compared Chinese paramount leader Xi Jinping's cult of personality and his ideology Xi Jinping Thought to that of Mao Zedong during the Common cold War.[78] Supporters say that it would make for a more civilized and police-constant guild.[79] Shoshana Zuboff considers it instrumentarian rather than totalitarian.[fourscore] Other emerging technologies that take been postulated to empower future totalitarianism include brain-reading, contact tracing and various applications of artificial intelligence.[81] [82] [83] [84] Philosopher Nick Bostrom said that there is a possible merchandise-off, namely that some existential risks might exist mitigated by the establishment of a powerful and permanent world authorities, and in turn the establishment of such a government could raise the existential risks which are associated with the rule of a permanent dictatorship.[85]

See also [edit]

  • Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism
  • List of authoritarian states
  • List of cults of personality
  • List of totalitarian regimes
  • Totalitarian compages

References [edit]

  1. ^ "Commonwealth Index 2021: the Red china challenge". EIU.com . Retrieved x February 2022.
  2. ^ a b Conquest, Robert (1999). Reflections on a Ravaged Century. p. 74. ISBN0-393-04818-7.
  3. ^ a b c Zimmerman, William (September 1980). "Review: How the Soviet Union is Governed". Slavic Review. Cambridge Academy Press. 39 (iii): 482–486. doi:10.2307/2497167. JSTOR 2497167.
  4. ^ a b c Connelly, John (2010). "Totalitarianism: Defunct Theory, Useful Give-and-take". Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History. xi (4): 819–835. doi:x.1353/kri.2010.0001. S2CID 143510612.
  5. ^ a b Siegel, Achim (1998). The Totalitarian Paradigm Later the End of Communism: Towards a Theoretical Reassessment (hardback ed.). Amsterdam: Rodopi. p. 200. ISBN9789042005525. Concepts of totalitarianism became near widespread at the summit of the Cold State of war. Since the late 1940s, especially since the Korean War, they were condensed into a far-reaching, even hegemonic, ideology, by which the political elites of the Western globe tried to explain and even to justify the Cold War constellation.
  6. ^ a b Guilhot, Nicholas (2005). The Democracy Makers: Human Rights and International Order (hardcover ed.). New York Urban center, New York: Columbia Academy Press. p. 33. ISBN9780231131247. The opposition between the West and Soviet totalitarianism was often presented as an opposition both moral and epistemological between truth and falsehood. The autonomous, social, and economical credentials of the Soviet Union were typically seen as 'lies' and every bit the product of deliberate and multiform propaganda. ... In this context, the concept of totalitarianism was itself an nugget. Every bit it made possible the conversion of prewar anti-fascism into postwar anti-communism.
  7. ^ a b Reisch, George A. (2005). How the Cold War Transformed Philosophy of Science: To the Icy Slopes of Logic. Cambridge University Press. pp. 153–154. ISBN9780521546898.
  8. ^ a b Defty, Brook (2007). "ii. Launching the New Propaganda Policy, 1948. 3. Building a Concerted Counter-offensive: Co-operation with other powers. four. Close and Continuous Liaison: British and American co-operation, 1950–51. five. A Global Propaganda Offensive: Churchill and the revival of political warfare". Britain, America and Anti-Communist Propaganda 1945–1953: The Information Inquiry Department (1st paperback ed.). London, England: Routledge. ISBN9780714683614.
  9. ^ a b Caute, David (2010). Politics and the Novel during the Cold War. Transaction Publishers. pp. 95–99. ISBN9781412831369. Archived from the original on 2021-04-14. Retrieved 2020-xi-22 .
  10. ^ Popper, Karl (21 April 2013). Gombrich, E. H. (ed.). The Open Society and Its Enemies. Princeton Academy Press. ISBN978-0-691-15813-6. Archived from the original on eleven January 2022. Retrieved 17 August 2021.
  11. ^ Wild, John (1964). Plato's Mod Enemies and the Theory of Natural Law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 23. "Popper is committing a serious historical error in attributing the organic theory of the state to Plato and accusing him of all the fallacies of mail-Hegelian and Marxist historicism—the theory that history is controlled by the inexorable laws governing the behaviour of superindividual social entities of which human beings and their costless choices are but subordinate manifestations."
  12. ^ Levinson, Ronald B. (1970). In Defense of Plato. New York: Russell and Russell. p. 20. "In spite of the high rating 1 must accordance his initial intention of fairness, his hatred for the enemies of the 'open lodge,' his zeal to destroy whatever seems to him destructive of the welfare of mankind, has led him into the extensive utilise of what may be called terminological counterpropaganda. ... With a few exceptions in Popper's favour, however, it is noticeable that reviewers possessed of special competence in detail fields—and here Lindsay is once again to exist included—accept objected to Popper'southward conclusions in those very fields. ... Social scientists and social philosophers have deplored his radical denial of historical causation, together with his espousal of Hayek's systematic distrust of larger programs of social reform; historical students of philosophy have protested his tearing polemical treatment of Plato, Aristotle, and particularly Hegel; ethicists take found contradictions in the upstanding theory ('critical dualism') upon which his polemic is largely based."
  13. ^ Horkheimer, Max; Adorno, Theodor West.; Noeri, Gunzelin (2002). Dialectic of Enlightenment. Stanford University Press. ISBN978-0-8047-3633-6. Archived from the original on 2022-01-10. Retrieved 2021-08-17 .
  14. ^ Schmitt, Carl (1927). University of Chicago Press (ed.). Der Begriff des Politischen [The Concept of the Political] (in German language) (1996 ed.). Rutgers University Press. p. 22. ISBN0-226-73886-8.
  15. ^ a b c d e Cinpoes, Radu (2010). Nationalism and Identity in Romania: A History of Extreme Politics from the Birth of the State to EU Accession. London, Oxford, New York, New Delhi and Sydney: Bloomsbury. p. 70. ISBN9781848851665.
  16. ^ a b c d Pipes, Richard (1995). Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime . New York: Vintage Books, Random Firm. p. 243. ISBN0394502426.
  17. ^ Davies, Sarah; Harris, James (2005). "Joseph Stalin: Power and Ideas". Stalin: A New History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. three. ISBN978-1-139-44663-ane. Academic Sovietology, a child of the early Cold War, was dominated by the 'totalitarian model' of Soviet politics. Until the 1960s it was almost incommunicable to advance whatever other interpretation, in the USA at least.
  18. ^ Davies, Sarah; Harris, James (2005). "Joseph Stalin: Power and Ideas". Stalin: A New History. Cambridge: Cambridge Academy Press. pp. 3–4. ISBN978-1-139-44663-1. In 1953, Carl Friedrich characterised totalitarian systems in terms of five points: an official ideology, control of weapons and of media, use of terror, and a single mass party, 'normally nether a single leader.' There was of grade an assumption that the leader was disquisitional to the workings of totalitarianism: at the apex of a monolithic, centralised, and hierarchical system, information technology was he who issued the orders which were fulfilled unquestioningly by his subordinates.
  19. ^ a b Davies, Sarah; Harris, James (2005). "Joseph Stalin: Ability and Ideas". Stalin: A New History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 4–five. ISBN978-i-139-44663-i. Tucker's work stressed the accented nature of Stalin's power, an assumption which was increasingly challenged by later revisionist historians. In his Origins of the Smashing Purges, Arch Getty argued that the Soviet political system was cluttered, that institutions oft escaped the control of the centre, and that Stalin's leadership consisted to a considerable extent in responding, on an advertising hoc basis, to political crises every bit they arose. Getty'due south piece of work was influenced by political science of the 1960s onwards, which, in a critique of the totalitarian model, began to consider the possibility that relatively autonomous bureaucratic institutions might have had some influence on policy-making at the highest level.
  20. ^ Lenoe, Matt (June 2002). "Did Stalin Impale Kirov and Does It Matter?". The Journal of Modernistic History. 74 (2): 352–380. doi:x.1086/343411. ISSN 0022-2801. S2CID 142829949.
  21. ^ Fitzpatrick, Sheila (November 2007). "Revisionism in Soviet History". History and Theory. 46 (iv): 77–91. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2303.2007.00429.x. ISSN 1468-2303. ... the Western scholars who in the 1990s and 2000s were most active in scouring the new archives for data on Soviet repression were revisionists (ever 'annal rats') such as Arch Getty and Lynne Viola.
  22. ^ a b c d Haynes, John Earl; Klehr, Harvey (2003). "Revising History". In Denial: Historians, Communism and Espionage. San Francisco: Encounter. pp. 11–57. ISBNane-893554-72-iv.
  23. ^ a b c Saladdin, Ahmed (2019). Totalitarian Space and the Destruction of Aureola. Albany: SUNY Printing. p. seven. ISBN9781438472935.
  24. ^ Doumanis, Nicholas, ed. (2016). The Oxford Handbook of European History, 1914–1945 (E-book ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. pp. 377–378. ISBN9780191017759. Archived from the original on 2021-09-07. Retrieved 2021-09-25 .
  25. ^ Payne, Stanley G. (1980). Fascism: Comparison and Definition. Academy of Washington Press. p. 73. ISBN9780299080600.
  26. ^ Gentile, Giovanni; Mussolini, Benito (1932). La dottrina del fascismo [The doctrine of fascism].
  27. ^ Conquest, Robert (1990). The Neat Terror: A Reassessment. Oxford University Printing. p. 249. ISBN0-xix-507132-8.
  28. ^ Nemoianu, Virgil (December 1982). "Review of End and Beginnings". Modernistic Language Notes. 97 (v): 1235–1238.
  29. ^ Churchill, Winston (5 October 1938). The Munich Agreement (Speech). Firm of Commons of the U.k.: International Churchill Order. Archived from the original on 26 June 2020. Retrieved 7 Baronial 2020. We in this country, as in other Liberal and autonomous countries, take a perfect correct to exalt the principle of self-conclusion, only it comes ill out of the mouths of those in totalitarian states who deny even the smallest chemical element of toleration to every section and creed inside their bounds. Many of those countries, in fear of the rise of the Nazi power, ... loathed the idea of having this arbitrary dominion of the totalitarian organization thrust upon them, and hoped that a stand would be made.
  30. ^ Churchill, Winston (sixteen October 1938). Broadcast to the United States and to London (Speech communication). International Churchill Lodge. Archived from the original on 25 September 2020. Retrieved vii August 2020.
  31. ^ Mann, Michael (2004). Fascists. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 331. ISBN9780521831314. Archived from the original on 2020-08-19. Retrieved 2017-10-26 .
  32. ^ Preston, Paul (2007). The Spanish Civil War: Reaction, Revolution and Revenge (3rd ed.). New York: Due west. W. Norton & Company. p. 64. ISBN978-0393329872.
  33. ^ Salvadó, Francisco J. Romero (2013). Historical Lexicon of the Spanish Civil War. Scarecrow Press. p. 149. ISBN9780810880092. Archived from the original on 2020-08-19. Retrieved 2019-04-27 .
  34. ^ Orwell, George (1946). "Why I Write". Gangrel. Archived from the original on 25 July 2020. Retrieved 7 August 2020.
  35. ^ Laqueur, Walter (1987). The Fate of the Revolution. New York: Scribner. p. 131. ISBN0-684-18903-8.
  36. ^ Villa, Dana Richard (2000). The Cambridge Companion to Hannah Arendt. Cambridge University Press. pp. 2–3. ISBN0-521-64571-9.
  37. ^ a b c Brzezinski, Zbigniew; Friedrich, Carl (1956). Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy. Harvard Academy Printing. ISBN9780674332607.
  38. ^ Aron, Raymond (1968). Democracy and Totalitarianism. Littlehampton Book Services. ISBN9780297002529.
  39. ^ Laqueur, Walter (1987). The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet History from 1917 to the Present. New York: Scribner's. pp. 186–189, 233–234. ISBN978-0684189031.
  40. ^ a b Kershaw, Ian (2000). The Nazi Dictatorship: Issues and Perspectives of Interpretation. London; New York: Arnold; Oxford University Press. p. 25. ISBN9780340760284. OCLC 43419425.
  41. ^ Laqueur, Walter (1987). The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet History from 1917 to the Present. New York: Scribner's. p. 241. ISBN978-0684189031.
  42. ^ Conze, Werner (1977). "Dice deutsche Geschichtswissenschaft seit 1945: Bedingungen und Ergebnisse" [German history since 1945: conditions and results]. Historische Zeitschrift. 225 (JG): i–28. doi:10.1524/hzhz.1977.225.jg.i. S2CID 164328961.
  43. ^ Hoffer, Eric (2002). The True Laic: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. Harper Perennial Modernistic Classics. pp. 61, 163. ISBN0-06-050591-5.
  44. ^ Hanebrink, Paul (July 2018). "European Protestants Between Anti-Communism and Anti-Totalitarianism: The Other Interwar Kulturkampf?". Periodical of Gimmicky History. 53 (3): 624. doi:10.1177/0022009417704894. S2CID 158028188.
  45. ^ Hanebrink, Paul (July 2018). "European Protestants Between Anti-Communism and Anti-Totalitarianism: The Other Interwar Kulturkampf?". Journal of Gimmicky History. 53 (3): 622–643. doi:10.1177/0022009417704894. S2CID 158028188.
  46. ^ Saad, Asma (21 Feb 2018). "Eritrea'south Silent Totalitarianism". McGill Journal of Political Studies (21). Archived from the original on 7 October 2018. Retrieved 7 Baronial 2020.
  47. ^ Neumayer, Laure (2018). The Criminalisation of Communism in the European Political Space after the Common cold War. Routledge. ISBN9781351141741.
  48. ^ Schönpflug, Daniel (2007). "Histoires croisées: François Furet, Ernst Nolte and a Comparative History of Totalitarian Movements". European History Quarterly. 37 (2): 265–290. doi:10.1177/0265691407075595. S2CID 143074271.
  49. ^ Singer, Daniel (17 April 1995). "The Sound and the Furet". The Nation. Archived from the original on 17 March 2008. Retrieved 7 August 2020. Furet, borrowing from Hannah Arendt, describes Bolsheviks and Nazis equally totalitarian twins, conflicting yet united.
  50. ^ Singer, Daniel (2 November 1999). "Exploiting a Tragedy, or Le Rouge en Noir". The Nation. Archived from the original on 26 July 2019. Retrieved vii August 2020. ... the totalitarian nature of Stalin's Russia is undeniable.
  51. ^ Grobman, Gary M. (1990). "Nazi Fascism and the Modern Totalitarian Land". Recall.org. Archived from the original on ii April 2015. Retrieved 7 August 2020. The government of Nazi Germany was a fascist, totalitarian state.
  52. ^ Hobsbawm, Eric (2012). "Revolutionaries". History and Illusion. Abacus. ISBN978-0-34-912056-0.
  53. ^ a b Laqueur, Walter (1987). The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet History from 1917 to the Present. New York: Scribner'southward. pp. 225–227. ISBN978-0684189031.
  54. ^ Laqueur, Walter (1987). The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet History from 1917 to the Nowadays. New York: Scribner'south. pp. 225, 228. ISBN978-0684189031. .
  55. ^ Fitzpatrick, Sheila (1999). Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Boggling Times: Soviet Russian federation in the 1930s. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN9780195050004.
  56. ^ Rubin, Eli (2008). Synthetic Socialism: Plastics & Dictatorship in the German Autonomous Republic. Chapel Hill: Academy of Due north Carolina Press. ISBN978-1-46-960677-4.
  57. ^ a b Laqueur, Walter (1987). The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet History from 1917 to the Present. New York: Scribner'south. p. 228. ISBN978-0684189031.
  58. ^ Laqueur, Walter (1987). The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet History from 1917 to the Present. New York: Scribner'due south. p. 233. ISBN978-0684189031.
  59. ^ Buhle, Paul; Rice-Maximin, Edward Francis (1995). William Appleman Williams: The Tragedy of Empire. Psychology Press. p. 192. ISBN0-34-912056-0.
  60. ^ Parenti, Michael (1997). Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism. San Francisco: City Lights Books. pp. 41–58. ISBN9780872863293.
  61. ^ Petras, James (November i, 1999). "The CIA and the Cultural Cold State of war Revisited". Monthly Review. 51 (6): 47. doi:ten.14452/MR-051-06-1999-10_4. Archived from the original on May 16, 2021. Retrieved June 19, 2021.
  62. ^ Traverso, Enzo (2001). Le Totalitarisme: Le XXe siècle en débat [Totalitarianism: The 20th Century in Debate] (in French). Poche. ISBN978-2020378574.
  63. ^ Losurdo, Domenico (January 2004). "Towards a Critique of the Category of Totalitarianism". Historical Materialism. 12 (2): 25–55. doi:ten.1163/1569206041551663.
  64. ^ Hedges, Chris; Sacco, Joe (2012). Days of Destruction, Days of Defection. Nation Books. ISBN9781568586434.
  65. ^ Liodakis, George (2010). Totalitarian Capitalism and Beyond. Routledge. ISBN9780754675570.
  66. ^ Žižek, Slavoj (2002). Welcome to the Desert of the Real. London and New York: Verso. ISBN9781859844212.
  67. ^ Engdahl, F. William (2009). Total Spectrum Potency: Totalitarian Commonwealth in the New World Order. Boxboro, Massachusetts: Third Millennium Press. ISBN9780979560866.
  68. ^ Wolin, Sheldon S. (2010). Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton Academy Press. ISBN9780691145891.
  69. ^ Žižek, Slavoj (2002). Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism?: V Interventions in the (Mis)Use of a Notion. London and New York: Verso. p. 169. ISBN9781859844250.
  70. ^ Shorten, Richard (2012). Modernism and Totalitarianism: Rethinking the Intellectual Sources of Nazism and Stalinism, 1945 to the Present. Palgrave. ISBN9780230252073.
  71. ^ Tismăneanu, Vladimir (2012). The Devil in History: Communism, Fascism, and Some Lessons of the Twentieth Century. Academy of California Press. ISBN9780520954175.
  72. ^ Tucker, Aviezer (2015). The Legacies of Totalitarianism: A Theoretical Framework. Cambridge University Printing. ISBN9781316393055.
  73. ^ Fuentes, Juan Francisco (2015). "How Words Reshape the Past: The 'Old, One-time Story of Totalitarianism". Politics, Religion & Ideology. 16 (ii–iii): 282–297. doi:10.1080/21567689.2015.1084928. S2CID 155157905.
  74. ^ Zuboff, Shoshana (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Man Hereafter at the New Borderland of Ability. New York: PublicAffairs. ISBN9781610395694. OCLC 1049577294.
  75. ^ Ord, Toby (2020). "Future Risks". The Precipice: Existential Take a chance and the Time to come of Humanity. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN9781526600196.
  76. ^ Clarke, R. (1988). "It and Dataveillance". Communications of the ACM. 31 (5): 498–512. doi:10.1145/42411.42413. S2CID 6826824.
  77. ^ "China invents the digital totalitarian state". The Economist. 17 December 2017. Archived from the original on 14 September 2018. Retrieved 14 September 2018.
  78. ^ Buckley, Chris (24 October 2017). "China Enshrines '11 Jinping Thought,' Elevating Leader to Mao-Like Status". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 22 November 2017. Retrieved 23 January 2020.
  79. ^ Leigh, Karen; Lee, Dandan (2 December 2018). "China's Radical Plan to Judge Each Citizen's Behavior". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2 Jan 2019. Retrieved 23 January 2020.
  80. ^ Lucas, Rob (January–February 2020). "The Surveillance Business". New Left Review. 121. Archived from the original on 21 June 2020. Retrieved 23 March 2020.
  81. ^ Brennan-Marquez, Yard. (2012). "A Modest Defence of Heed Reading". Yale Journal of Police force and Technology. 15 (214). Archived from the original on 2020-08-x.
  82. ^ Pickett, K. (16 April 2020). "Totalitarianism: Congressman calls method to track coronavirus cases an invasion of privacy". Washington Examiner. Archived from the original on 22 April 2020. Retrieved 23 April 2020.
  83. ^ Helbing, D.; Frey, B. S.; Gigerenzer, Yard.; et al. (2019). "Volition democracy survive large data and artificial intelligence?". Towards Digital Enlightenment: Essays on the Dark and Light Sides of the Digital Revolution. Springer, Cham. pp. 73–98. ISBN9783319908694.
  84. ^ Turchin, Alexey; Denkenberger, David (3 May 2018). "Classification of global catastrophic risks connected with bogus intelligence". AI & Society. 35 (1): 147–163. doi:10.1007/s00146-018-0845-5. S2CID 19208453.
  85. ^ Bostrom, Nick (February 2013). "Existential Gamble Prevention as Global Priority". Global Policy. four (1): 15–31. doi:x.1111/1758-5899.12002.

Further reading [edit]

  • Arendt, Hannah, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Schocken Books, 1958, new ed. 1966). online
  • Armstrong, John A. The Politics of Totalitarianism (New York: Random House, 1961).
  • Béja, Jean-Philippe. "Xi Jinping's China: on the road to neo-totalitarianism." Social Inquiry 86.1 (2019): 203-230.
  • Bernholz, Peter. "Ideocracy and totalitarianism: A formal analysis incorporating ideology", Public Choice 108, 2001, pp. 33–75.
  • Bernholz, Peter. "Ideology, sects, state and totalitarianism. A general theory". In: H. Maier and M. Schaefer (eds.): Totalitarianism and Political Religions, Vol. II (Routledge, 2007), pp. 246–lxx.
  • Borkenau, Franz, The Totalitarian Enemy (London: Faber and Faber 1940).
  • Bracher, Karl Dietrich, "The Disputed Concept of Totalitarianism," pp. xi–33 from Totalitarianism Reconsidered edited by Ernest A. Menze (Kennikat Press, 1981) ISBN 0804692688.
  • Congleton, Roger D. "Governance by true believers: Supreme duties with and without totalitarianism." Constitutional Political Economy 31.1 (2020): 111-141. online
  • Connelly, John. "Totalitarianism: Defunct Theory, Useful Discussion" Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 11#iv (2010) 819–835. online.
  • Curtis, Michael. Totalitarianism (1979) online
  • Devlin, Nicholas. "Hannah Arendt and Marxist Theories of Totalitarianism." Modern Intellectual History (2021): 1-23 online.
  • Diamond, Larry. "The road to digital unfreedom: The threat of postmodern totalitarianism." Journal of Commonwealth xxx.1 (2019): xx-24. excerpt
  • Fitzpatrick, Sheila, and Michael Geyer, eds. Beyond Totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism Compared (Cambridge Academy Press, 2008).
  • Friedrich, Carl and Z. Grand. Brzezinski, Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (Harvard University Printing, 1st ed. 1956, second ed. 1967).
  • Gach, Nataliia. "From totalitarianism to democracy: Building learner autonomy in Ukrainian higher education." Issues in Educational Research xxx.ii (2020): 532-554. online
  • Gleason, Abbott. Totalitarianism: The Inner History Of The Cold War (New York: Oxford University Printing, 1995), ISBN 0195050177.
  • Gregor, A. Totalitarianism and political religion (Stanford University Press, 2020).
  • Hanebrink, Paul. "European Protestants Between Anti-Communism and Anti-Totalitarianism: The Other Interwar Kulturkampf?" Journal of Contemporary History (July 2018) Vol. 53, Issue 3, pp. 622–43
  • Hermet, Guy, with Pierre Hassner and Jacques Rupnik, Totalitarismes (Paris: Éditions Economica, 1984).
  • Jainchill, Andrew, and Samuel Moyn. "French democracy between totalitarianism and solidarity: Pierre Rosanvallon and revisionist historiography." Journal of Modernistic History 76.1 (2004): 107–154. online
  • Joscelyne, Sophie. "Norman Mailer and American Totalitarianism in the 1960s." Modern Intellectual History 19.i (2022): 241-267 online.
  • Keller, Marcello Sorce. "Why is Music so Ideological, Why Do Totalitarian States Accept It So Seriously", Journal of Musicological Research, XXVI (2007), no. 2–iii, pp. 91–122.
  • Kirkpatrick, Jeane, Dictatorships and Double Standards: Rationalism and reason in politics (London: Simon & Schuster, 1982).
  • Laqueur, Walter, The Fate of the Revolution Interpretations of Soviet History From 1917 to the Nowadays (London: Collier Books, 1987) ISBN 002034080X.
  • Menze, Ernest, ed. Totalitarianism reconsidered (1981) online essays by experts
  • Ludwig von Mises, Almighty Government: The Rise of the Full State and Total State of war (Yale University Press, 1944).
  • Murray, Ewan. Shut Up: Tale of Totalitarianism (2005).
  • Nicholls, A.J. "Historians and Totalitarianism: The Impact of High german Unification." Periodical of Gimmicky History 36.4 (2001): 653–661.
  • Patrikeeff, Felix. "Stalinism, Totalitarian Society and the Politics of 'Perfect Control'", Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, (Summertime 2003), Vol. iv Issue 1, pp. 23–46.
  • Payne, Stanley G., A History of Fascism (London: Routledge, 1996).
  • Rak, Joanna, and Roman Bäcker. "Theory behind Russian Quest for Totalitarianism. Analysis of Discursive Swing in Putin's Speeches." Communist and Post-Communist Studies 53.i (2020): 13-26 online.
  • Roberts, David D. Totalitarianism (John Wiley & Sons, 2020).
  • Rocker, Rudolf, Nationalism and Culture (Covici-Friede, 1937).
  • Sartori, Giovanni, The Theory of Commonwealth Revisited (Chatham, Northward.J: Chatham House, 1987).
  • Sauer, Wolfgang. "National Socialism: totalitarianism or fascism?" American Historical Review, Volume 73, Event #two (Dec 1967): 404–24. online.
  • Saxonberg, Steven. Pre-modernity, totalitarianism and the not-boiler of evil: A comparison of Germany, Kingdom of spain, Sweden and France (Springer Nature, 2019).
  • Schapiro, Leonard. Totalitarianism (London: The Pall Mall Printing, 1972).
  • Selinger, William. "The politics of Arendtian historiography: European federation and the origins of totalitarianism." Modern Intellectual History 13.ii (2016): 417–446.
  • Skotheim, Robert Allen. Totalitarianism and American social thought (1971) online
  • Talmon, J. L., The Origins of Totalitarian Commonwealth (London: Seeker & Warburg, 1952).
  • Traverso, Enzo, Le Totalitarisme : Le XXe siècle en débat (Paris: Poche, 2001).
  • Tuori, Kaius. "Narratives and Normativity: Totalitarianism and Narrative Modify in the European Legal Tradition afterward Earth War II." Law and History Review 37.ii (2019): 605-638 online.
  • Žižek, Slavoj, Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism? (London: Verso, 2001). online

External links [edit]

  • "Totalitarianism". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

olearyyouslorou.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

0 Response to "what factors led to the rise of totalitarian governments such as fascism and communism in europe"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel