What do you think?
Rate this book
Library of America #389
The Origins of Totalitarianism
Hannah Arendt's definitive work on totalitarianism and an essential component of any study of twentieth-century political history
The Origins of Totalitarianism begins with the rise of anti-Semitism in central and western Europe in the 1800s and continues with an examination of European colonial imperialism from 1884 to the outbreak of World War I. Arendt explores the institutions and operations of totalitarian movements, focusing on the two genuine forms of totalitarian government in our time—Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia—which she adroitly recognizes were two sides of the same coin, rather than opposing philosophies of Right and Left. From this vantage point, she discusses the evolution of classes into masses, the role of propaganda in dealing with the nontotalitarian world, the use of terror, and the nature of isolation and loneliness as preconditions for total domination.
The Origins of Totalitarianism begins with the rise of anti-Semitism in central and western Europe in the 1800s and continues with an examination of European colonial imperialism from 1884 to the outbreak of World War I. Arendt explores the institutions and operations of totalitarian movements, focusing on the two genuine forms of totalitarian government in our time—Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia—which she adroitly recognizes were two sides of the same coin, rather than opposing philosophies of Right and Left. From this vantage point, she discusses the evolution of classes into masses, the role of propaganda in dealing with the nontotalitarian world, the use of terror, and the nature of isolation and loneliness as preconditions for total domination.
527 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1951
About the author
Hannah Arendt
358 books4,318 followersHannah Arendt (1906 – 1975) was one of the most influential political philosophers of the twentieth century. Born into a German-Jewish family, she was forced to leave Germany in 1933 and lived in Paris for the next eight years, working for a number of Jewish refugee organisations. In 1941 she immigrated to the United States and soon became part of a lively intellectual circle in New York. She held a number of academic positions at various American universities until her death in 1975. She is best known for two works that had a major impact both within and outside the academic community. The first, The Origins of Totalitarianism, published in 1951, was a study of the Nazi and Stalinist regimes that generated a wide-ranging debate on the nature and historical antecedents of the totalitarian phenomenon. The second, The Human Condition, published in 1958, was an original philosophical study that investigated the fundamental categories of the vita activa (labor, work, action). In addition to these two important works, Arendt published a number of influential essays on topics such as the nature of revolution, freedom, authority, tradition and the modern age. At the time of her death in 1975, she had completed the first two volumes of her last major philosophical work, The Life of the Mind, which examined the three fundamental faculties of the vita contemplativa (thinking, willing, judging).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,171 reviews
July 11, 2019
Some Tips For The Reader To Be
Having just finished this monster of a book in just under three months (not sure if any book has taken me so long to finish, perhaps Infinite Jest might surpass?), I can safely say that I feel like I've just gone through ninety days of mental kick boxing with Arendt. As such, I've had plenty of time to conduct a criticism in my head that I feel adds to the already crammed Goodreads review page on here. It takes the form of three bits of advise, as I truly believe ALL should read this book, but many may need some guidance from a fellow average joe (and not a History Major) who's reached the finish line. It goes as follows:
1.) Style.
Unless you have experience in understanding the language of Political Science (or any complex subject), or you are very well read with in-depth politics, or you just so happen to be able to process complex ideas and writings from paper to brain in perfect unity, then you may find that the first 100 pages of this book will hit you like a clean round-house kick to the head. I found this text HARD to process (If you don't believe me, check the reader Q&A), and it's definitely the first non-fiction that I've really had to churn through. It took a good month of reading for me to fully get into gear with Arendt's writing style and what makes it so hard (at least for me) leads to my second point.
2.) What Arendt is setting out to inform the reader of.
It was only after having a minor freak out finishing part II of this book (Imperialism) in a computer room late at night that I fully grasped what Arendt was attempting to convey to readers when forming this book. This book doesn't read as a series of historical events told in a traditionally chronological order, neither does it read as a study of the inner workings of the leaders / political body of said movements. Instead, The Origins of Totalitarianism reads like a slow motion dread-fest that builds in momentum as the reader learns about the collective thoughts of the population at the time. Arendt goes from informing us about the various peoples of pre-WWII Europe and the hatred pumped into their consciousness which found a voice in anti-Semitism; Racism; the eventual Pan-Movements, and finally exposing how Imperialism nurtured it all. All as the pre-requisites for what gave birth to the Nightmare Ideologies of Hitler and Stalin. So what makes it different in its explanation of these events? Simply put, Arendt attempts to show the reader the mindset of western society at the time. Not of an individual, but of the subconscious, unquestioning attitude toward the world the elite and in-power peoples of Europe (such as Britain and Germany) held, and how they ended up seeing reality in this warped, divorced way. This is what makes for a difficult read. Arendt attempted to create a book that weaves human thought together when we are assembled together en-masse (no easy feat), and display the inner workings of those who inhabited an Imperialistic world full of expansion and domination. I won't attempt to go into how she manages to actually make sense of the deliberately illogical, irrational and insane endgame society that came next (Hint: it begins with a T). But what follows is the bone chilling chronicling of how men became convinced they were servants to the never-changing, always forward moving cogs of history (as viewed through the eyes of imperialists). Everything is laid bare as the reader is guided, and shown how the foundations of a society based on terror as it's core function - and an enemy always in need of extermination - was born.
3.) How the reader should tackle the book .
Attack this book pro-actively. I had a pen on me at all times, and I constantly marked passages that stood out and made notes in case I returned (I'm sure I will). Most importantly, be humble when reading this book and realise this is one of those texts that requires time and thought to read. Millions died in ways that, as Arendt would say: "Saw the impossible made possible", thanks to this sickening ideology that made history explainable to those who couldn't understand their misery in one giant consumable pill labelled 'RACE' (in the case of Nazi Germany), and - in a terrifying twist of Marx's philosophy - 'CLASS' (in the case of Stalin's Russia) for the masses to swallow. It is the least we can do to mentally arm ourselves against this carcass of a thought-trail, and arm those around us also.
There's a reason I have this shelved under Horror, and when we're told that reading can change one's brain structure then I feel this book did exactly that. I won't see things in quite the same way.
I feel I can sum this subject up in one final paragraph. Humans, being the organically grown creatures of mother earth that we are, are not separate from the laws of nature that all other creatures must obey. When we don't nourish our bodies physically; we catch a flu, or grow fat and weak from lack of exercise. When we don't nourish our minds properly, or keep our mental health in check; we become melancholy, or depressed. The exact same can be said of societies (for what are societies if not humans expressing their desires and aims into a physical collective) I believe. Totalitarianism is a modern societal disease. A sickness that appears from a collective that has had it's heart ripped out and its people left with no future prospect. A society that has failed to nourish itself with all the needs and basic requirements for humans to flourish will decay. It's the mutation of decayed Imperialism and modern Empire that gives birth to Death Camps and Gulags which, ultimately, if allowed to continue, would have seen the movement cannibalise it's population and destroy itself (see 'The German Health Bill' for what Hitler had planned for those who were ill or had a disability).
I believe previous societies have had their own version of this mutation when they have collapsed, but due to the manner of the modern world, nothing could have reflected a society's fall as horrifically as Totalitarianism, and no-one seems to have chronicalled it better than Hannah Arendt.
Having just finished this monster of a book in just under three months (not sure if any book has taken me so long to finish, perhaps Infinite Jest might surpass?), I can safely say that I feel like I've just gone through ninety days of mental kick boxing with Arendt. As such, I've had plenty of time to conduct a criticism in my head that I feel adds to the already crammed Goodreads review page on here. It takes the form of three bits of advise, as I truly believe ALL should read this book, but many may need some guidance from a fellow average joe (and not a History Major) who's reached the finish line. It goes as follows:
1.) Style.
Unless you have experience in understanding the language of Political Science (or any complex subject), or you are very well read with in-depth politics, or you just so happen to be able to process complex ideas and writings from paper to brain in perfect unity, then you may find that the first 100 pages of this book will hit you like a clean round-house kick to the head. I found this text HARD to process (If you don't believe me, check the reader Q&A), and it's definitely the first non-fiction that I've really had to churn through. It took a good month of reading for me to fully get into gear with Arendt's writing style and what makes it so hard (at least for me) leads to my second point.
2.) What Arendt is setting out to inform the reader of.
It was only after having a minor freak out finishing part II of this book (Imperialism) in a computer room late at night that I fully grasped what Arendt was attempting to convey to readers when forming this book. This book doesn't read as a series of historical events told in a traditionally chronological order, neither does it read as a study of the inner workings of the leaders / political body of said movements. Instead, The Origins of Totalitarianism reads like a slow motion dread-fest that builds in momentum as the reader learns about the collective thoughts of the population at the time. Arendt goes from informing us about the various peoples of pre-WWII Europe and the hatred pumped into their consciousness which found a voice in anti-Semitism; Racism; the eventual Pan-Movements, and finally exposing how Imperialism nurtured it all. All as the pre-requisites for what gave birth to the Nightmare Ideologies of Hitler and Stalin. So what makes it different in its explanation of these events? Simply put, Arendt attempts to show the reader the mindset of western society at the time. Not of an individual, but of the subconscious, unquestioning attitude toward the world the elite and in-power peoples of Europe (such as Britain and Germany) held, and how they ended up seeing reality in this warped, divorced way. This is what makes for a difficult read. Arendt attempted to create a book that weaves human thought together when we are assembled together en-masse (no easy feat), and display the inner workings of those who inhabited an Imperialistic world full of expansion and domination. I won't attempt to go into how she manages to actually make sense of the deliberately illogical, irrational and insane endgame society that came next (Hint: it begins with a T). But what follows is the bone chilling chronicling of how men became convinced they were servants to the never-changing, always forward moving cogs of history (as viewed through the eyes of imperialists). Everything is laid bare as the reader is guided, and shown how the foundations of a society based on terror as it's core function - and an enemy always in need of extermination - was born.
3.) How the reader should tackle the book .
Attack this book pro-actively. I had a pen on me at all times, and I constantly marked passages that stood out and made notes in case I returned (I'm sure I will). Most importantly, be humble when reading this book and realise this is one of those texts that requires time and thought to read. Millions died in ways that, as Arendt would say: "Saw the impossible made possible", thanks to this sickening ideology that made history explainable to those who couldn't understand their misery in one giant consumable pill labelled 'RACE' (in the case of Nazi Germany), and - in a terrifying twist of Marx's philosophy - 'CLASS' (in the case of Stalin's Russia) for the masses to swallow. It is the least we can do to mentally arm ourselves against this carcass of a thought-trail, and arm those around us also.
There's a reason I have this shelved under Horror, and when we're told that reading can change one's brain structure then I feel this book did exactly that. I won't see things in quite the same way.
I feel I can sum this subject up in one final paragraph. Humans, being the organically grown creatures of mother earth that we are, are not separate from the laws of nature that all other creatures must obey. When we don't nourish our bodies physically; we catch a flu, or grow fat and weak from lack of exercise. When we don't nourish our minds properly, or keep our mental health in check; we become melancholy, or depressed. The exact same can be said of societies (for what are societies if not humans expressing their desires and aims into a physical collective) I believe. Totalitarianism is a modern societal disease. A sickness that appears from a collective that has had it's heart ripped out and its people left with no future prospect. A society that has failed to nourish itself with all the needs and basic requirements for humans to flourish will decay. It's the mutation of decayed Imperialism and modern Empire that gives birth to Death Camps and Gulags which, ultimately, if allowed to continue, would have seen the movement cannibalise it's population and destroy itself (see 'The German Health Bill' for what Hitler had planned for those who were ill or had a disability).
I believe previous societies have had their own version of this mutation when they have collapsed, but due to the manner of the modern world, nothing could have reflected a society's fall as horrifically as Totalitarianism, and no-one seems to have chronicalled it better than Hannah Arendt.
May 16, 2021
Hannah Arendt, a German-born woman of Jewish descent, witnessed the rise of antisemitism in Germany in the early 1930s and even got arrested by the Gestapo. The Origins of Totalitarianism, a thick volume on political philosophy, written in the aftermath of World War II, is Nietzschean in its approach (cf. On the Genealogy of Morality) and covers a vast amount of topics:
a) Antisemitism and Jewish identity, through its varied and palpable expressions — with a focus on the divisive Dreyfus affair, in France, at the turn of the 20th century.
b) Imperialism, or the domination of the wealthy and the capitalistic expansionism over a Mob that seeks a hard-headed leader and is ready to believe in an uncomplicated ideology.
c) Totalitarianism, by way of its two central figures (at the time): Nazism and Bolshevism — not to be confused, says Arendt, with other regimes such as despotism, tyranny or dictatorship, since totalitarianism proper is based on turning people into a commodity, the prohibition to dissent and the absence of privacy. Internet and big-data surveillance, in this sense, might well be, nowadays, a totalitarian’s dream.
One can undoubtedly skip the massive bulk of this book (600+ pages) and go straight to the last section, a very dynamic text titled Ideology and Terror: A Novel Form of Government. This chapter is a masterful analysis of ideology. In particular, the author describes the complicated relationship between ideologies and truth. Indeed, ideological frameworks are often based on superstition, magical thinking, pseudo-science or disputed theories, yet claim to be the sole and total truth. Its precepts supersede facts (remember the debate between “fake news” and “alternative facts”), and anything that does not back up the ideology’s belief system or final purpose should be considered a “hoax”. In other words, canned messages and comforting fantasies need to win over the complexities of reality. However, suppose an ideology is having a hard time because reality is a bit too chaotic to handle? In that case, there are still practical last resorts, such as the “ostrich approach” or the “scapegoat approach” (heap abuse on the wayward minorities or on those who stand up for the facts).
In short: an ideology needs people who cannot make the difference between fiction and reality and consent to be led like lemmings. In Arendt’s own words: “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist” (Penguin paperback edition, p. 622). Moreover, this ideal subject of totalitarian rule is best brewed when people mope around in isolation, loneliness, impotence, “uprootedness” and “superfluousness” (let us add unemployment, poverty and distress): an all too common experience in our postmodern condition. And once a rule of terror is established, no one is ever loitering, floundering or left alone anymore.
Arendt’s examples are mainly Nazism and Bolshevism. However, her book can help to decipher other political regimes. For instance, in fiction: Kafka’s world in The Trial, Orwell’s Oceania in 1984 or Atwood’s Gilead in The Handmaid’s Tale. More importantly, of course, it can help us think of today’s regimes in different parts of the world. It is also an invitation to reflect on the disturbing tendencies of the populist/nationalist movements, sprouting almost everywhere and running the risk of becoming the germs of future forms of totalitarianism.
a) Antisemitism and Jewish identity, through its varied and palpable expressions — with a focus on the divisive Dreyfus affair, in France, at the turn of the 20th century.
b) Imperialism, or the domination of the wealthy and the capitalistic expansionism over a Mob that seeks a hard-headed leader and is ready to believe in an uncomplicated ideology.
c) Totalitarianism, by way of its two central figures (at the time): Nazism and Bolshevism — not to be confused, says Arendt, with other regimes such as despotism, tyranny or dictatorship, since totalitarianism proper is based on turning people into a commodity, the prohibition to dissent and the absence of privacy. Internet and big-data surveillance, in this sense, might well be, nowadays, a totalitarian’s dream.
One can undoubtedly skip the massive bulk of this book (600+ pages) and go straight to the last section, a very dynamic text titled Ideology and Terror: A Novel Form of Government. This chapter is a masterful analysis of ideology. In particular, the author describes the complicated relationship between ideologies and truth. Indeed, ideological frameworks are often based on superstition, magical thinking, pseudo-science or disputed theories, yet claim to be the sole and total truth. Its precepts supersede facts (remember the debate between “fake news” and “alternative facts”), and anything that does not back up the ideology’s belief system or final purpose should be considered a “hoax”. In other words, canned messages and comforting fantasies need to win over the complexities of reality. However, suppose an ideology is having a hard time because reality is a bit too chaotic to handle? In that case, there are still practical last resorts, such as the “ostrich approach” or the “scapegoat approach” (heap abuse on the wayward minorities or on those who stand up for the facts).
In short: an ideology needs people who cannot make the difference between fiction and reality and consent to be led like lemmings. In Arendt’s own words: “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist” (Penguin paperback edition, p. 622). Moreover, this ideal subject of totalitarian rule is best brewed when people mope around in isolation, loneliness, impotence, “uprootedness” and “superfluousness” (let us add unemployment, poverty and distress): an all too common experience in our postmodern condition. And once a rule of terror is established, no one is ever loitering, floundering or left alone anymore.
Arendt’s examples are mainly Nazism and Bolshevism. However, her book can help to decipher other political regimes. For instance, in fiction: Kafka’s world in The Trial, Orwell’s Oceania in 1984 or Atwood’s Gilead in The Handmaid’s Tale. More importantly, of course, it can help us think of today’s regimes in different parts of the world. It is also an invitation to reflect on the disturbing tendencies of the populist/nationalist movements, sprouting almost everywhere and running the risk of becoming the germs of future forms of totalitarianism.
June 20, 2024
At a time when, everywhere, the essence of Liberal Democracy has questions and attacks are made (often disproportionate and unreasonable) on its functioning, Hannah Arendt invites us to travel through time and the History of ideas and facts about politicians to understand that approximately a century ago, we were experiencing a relatively similar impasse. This detailed work is a whole “course” in citizenship, Contemporary History, and Political Science. The book is especially recommended for our youth who have lost references, reading habits, and knowledge of our History. After reading, we will never remain indifferent to the importance of the message that one of the greatest thinkers of our time was able to take from us as an inheritance.
January 21, 2011
I'd always assumed totalitarianism and dictatorship were the same thing. But nope. I learned more about modern politics and power reading this masterpiece by Hannah Arendt than in the past 20 years of reading and studying. I was shocked to find that certain baffling features of contemporary political movements suddenly make perfect, terrifying sense when viewed from a totalitarian perspective.
Some fun things I learned about totalitarian movements:
-Totalitarian movements deny objective reality and deliberately enclose themselves and their populations in a self-manufactured world of ever-changing fictions.
-Totalitarian movements are not pro-national movements. A totalitarian movement's goal is ultimately to destroy the nation it inhabits. Similarly, totalitarianism doesn't use the law to control its population. (I'd always thought totalitarianism meant more and harsher laws) Totalitarian movements abandon all law and strive toward utter lawlessness.
-In totalitarian movements, the power of the military becomes second to the power of intelligence agencies.
-Totalitarian movements always aspire to global domination
Good fun!
Some fun things I learned about totalitarian movements:
-Totalitarian movements deny objective reality and deliberately enclose themselves and their populations in a self-manufactured world of ever-changing fictions.
-Totalitarian movements are not pro-national movements. A totalitarian movement's goal is ultimately to destroy the nation it inhabits. Similarly, totalitarianism doesn't use the law to control its population. (I'd always thought totalitarianism meant more and harsher laws) Totalitarian movements abandon all law and strive toward utter lawlessness.
-In totalitarian movements, the power of the military becomes second to the power of intelligence agencies.
-Totalitarian movements always aspire to global domination
Good fun!
March 26, 2017
"Totalitarianism is a political system in which the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life."
Some have said this should be required reading to prepare ourselves to face the changing political climate armed with information, as we watch again the rise of nationalism, the rise of antisemitism, the rise to power of what could be a new demagogue: 'a political leader who tries to get support by making false claims and promises and using arguments based on emotion rather than reason.'
We have every reason to be greatly worried. On February 17, 2017, Donald Trump called the news media "the enemy of the American people" in a tweet. If that doesn't scare you, nothing will.
This book could be said to be quite dated, having been first published in 1951, shortly after the end of WWII, and during the midst of Stalin's Soviet regime. This particular edition was updated in 1966, with a long introduction by the author detailing the many changes in the world at that time. But of course so much more has happened since then: the breakup of the Soviet Union and rise to power of Putin in Russia, to name just two.
So read this book for information on totalitarianism, its origins and its elements, and not so much for an up-to-date history lesson.
Once again, as I frequently do with heavy material, I'm planning to read this in small doses, perhaps a chapter a day, to try to digest the information.
Part One: Antisemitism with chapters entitled: An Outrage to Common Sense; The Jews, the Nation-State and the Birth of Antisemitism; and The Dreyfus Affair.
Part Two: Imperialism with chapters entitled: The Political Emancipation of the Bourgeoisie; Race-thinking Before Racism; Race and Bureaucracy; Continental Imperialism: The Pan-Movements; and the Decline of the Nation-State and the End of the Rights of Man.
Interesting quote: "'Expansion is everything,' said Cecil Rhodes, and fell into despair, for every night he saw overhead 'these stars...these vast worlds which we can never reach. I would annex the planets if I could.'"
"Imperialism was born when the ruling class in capitalist production came up against national limitations to its economic expansion."
Part Three: Totalitarianism with chapters entitled A Classless Society; The Totalitarian Movement; and Totalitarianism in Power.
This section was the reason I wanted to read this book in the first place, to understand what circumstances allow the rise of totalitarianism.
To understand the fascination exercised by Hitler:
"Society is always prone to accept a person offhand for what he pretends to be, so that a crackpot posing as a genius always has a certain chance of being believed. In modern society, with its characteristic lack of discerning judgment, this tendency is strengthened, so that someone who not only holds opinions but also presents them in a tone of unshakable conviction will not so easily forfeit his prestige, no matter how many times he has been demonstrably wrong."
"...their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of man who can fabricate it."
Arendt wrote this book just a few short years after WWII had ended. People were still in shock and there was a lot of disbelief surrounding what had gone on in the concentration camps: "Nazis have always known that men determined to commit crimes will find it expedient to organize them on the vastest, most improbable scale. Not only because this renders all punishments provided by the legal system inadequate and absurd; but because the very immensity of the crimes guarantees that the murderers who proclaim their innocence with all manner of lies will be more readily believed than the victims who tell the truth." Incredible!!
"Concentration camps can very aptly be divided into three types corresponding to three basic Western conceptions of life after death:"
Hades: relatively mild forms of camps for getting undesirable elements out of the way--the forerunner of the Displaced Persons camps established after the war.
Purgatory: chaotic forced labor camps such as utilized by the Soviets.
Hell: perfected by the Nazis and organized for the greatest possible torment.
"All three types have one thing in common: the human masses sealed off in them are treated as if they no longer existed, as if what happened to them were no longer of any interest to anybody, as if they were already dead and some evil spirit gone mad were amusing himself by stopping them for a while between life and death before admitting them to eternal death."
Chilling, isn't it?
I would give this book 2 stars for ease of reading and 5 stars for importance. Hannah Arendt was obviously a brilliant scholar and her book is well worth the time it takes to read through all the historical background she provides. I may not have retained much but the details were endlessly fascinating. I would say that part three on totalitarianism could be read alone if one just wants more information on that.
Some have said this should be required reading to prepare ourselves to face the changing political climate armed with information, as we watch again the rise of nationalism, the rise of antisemitism, the rise to power of what could be a new demagogue: 'a political leader who tries to get support by making false claims and promises and using arguments based on emotion rather than reason.'
We have every reason to be greatly worried. On February 17, 2017, Donald Trump called the news media "the enemy of the American people" in a tweet. If that doesn't scare you, nothing will.
This book could be said to be quite dated, having been first published in 1951, shortly after the end of WWII, and during the midst of Stalin's Soviet regime. This particular edition was updated in 1966, with a long introduction by the author detailing the many changes in the world at that time. But of course so much more has happened since then: the breakup of the Soviet Union and rise to power of Putin in Russia, to name just two.
So read this book for information on totalitarianism, its origins and its elements, and not so much for an up-to-date history lesson.
Once again, as I frequently do with heavy material, I'm planning to read this in small doses, perhaps a chapter a day, to try to digest the information.
Part One: Antisemitism with chapters entitled: An Outrage to Common Sense; The Jews, the Nation-State and the Birth of Antisemitism; and The Dreyfus Affair.
Part Two: Imperialism with chapters entitled: The Political Emancipation of the Bourgeoisie; Race-thinking Before Racism; Race and Bureaucracy; Continental Imperialism: The Pan-Movements; and the Decline of the Nation-State and the End of the Rights of Man.
Interesting quote: "'Expansion is everything,' said Cecil Rhodes, and fell into despair, for every night he saw overhead 'these stars...these vast worlds which we can never reach. I would annex the planets if I could.'"
"Imperialism was born when the ruling class in capitalist production came up against national limitations to its economic expansion."
Part Three: Totalitarianism with chapters entitled A Classless Society; The Totalitarian Movement; and Totalitarianism in Power.
This section was the reason I wanted to read this book in the first place, to understand what circumstances allow the rise of totalitarianism.
To understand the fascination exercised by Hitler:
"Society is always prone to accept a person offhand for what he pretends to be, so that a crackpot posing as a genius always has a certain chance of being believed. In modern society, with its characteristic lack of discerning judgment, this tendency is strengthened, so that someone who not only holds opinions but also presents them in a tone of unshakable conviction will not so easily forfeit his prestige, no matter how many times he has been demonstrably wrong."
"...their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of man who can fabricate it."
Arendt wrote this book just a few short years after WWII had ended. People were still in shock and there was a lot of disbelief surrounding what had gone on in the concentration camps: "Nazis have always known that men determined to commit crimes will find it expedient to organize them on the vastest, most improbable scale. Not only because this renders all punishments provided by the legal system inadequate and absurd; but because the very immensity of the crimes guarantees that the murderers who proclaim their innocence with all manner of lies will be more readily believed than the victims who tell the truth." Incredible!!
"Concentration camps can very aptly be divided into three types corresponding to three basic Western conceptions of life after death:"
Hades: relatively mild forms of camps for getting undesirable elements out of the way--the forerunner of the Displaced Persons camps established after the war.
Purgatory: chaotic forced labor camps such as utilized by the Soviets.
Hell: perfected by the Nazis and organized for the greatest possible torment.
"All three types have one thing in common: the human masses sealed off in them are treated as if they no longer existed, as if what happened to them were no longer of any interest to anybody, as if they were already dead and some evil spirit gone mad were amusing himself by stopping them for a while between life and death before admitting them to eternal death."
Chilling, isn't it?
I would give this book 2 stars for ease of reading and 5 stars for importance. Hannah Arendt was obviously a brilliant scholar and her book is well worth the time it takes to read through all the historical background she provides. I may not have retained much but the details were endlessly fascinating. I would say that part three on totalitarianism could be read alone if one just wants more information on that.
Read
May 9, 2024When I started this book I wondered whether it would prove challenging for someone like me, and my worries on that score proved to be well-founded. It took me almost 3 months to read this, albeit I was reading other books alongside it. It’s a hefty tome - my edition has 630 pages without the bibliography and notes - but the biggest issue for me was Hannah Arendt’s terrifically dense writing style, combined with the complexity of her arguments. There were times I started reading this only to break off again after a few pages, already requiring a break. I was lucky that I read it on my Kindle, which has a highlighting function convenient for noting significant passages that I could return to later. If I had read this as a paper book I would have required copious notes. These reservations however, do not alter the fact that this book contains a great deal of value.
Arendt focuses entirely on Naziism and Stalinism. There is hardly a mention of Maoism, though the Maoist regime fitted the category perfectly. The book was written prior to Mao’s Cultural Revolution, so maybe the true nature of that regime was not apparent to Hannah Arendt. In terms of the “origins” of totalitarianism, in my opinion the book concentrates very much on the nazis rather than the communists.
The book consists of three separate essays, on antisemitism, imperialism, and totalitarianism. In the first, Arendt suggests that the creation of the nation-state from the late 18th century onwards, was closely linked to antisemitism moving from a form of religiously based persecution to a racially based one. Whilst I would agree that modern antisemitism is a form of racial prejudice, I wasn’t entirely convinced that the medieval variety contained no racial or at least class element. In the second section, Arendt describes imperialism as the direct precursor to totalitarianism, partly because imperialism was racially based, but also because it raised the prospect of world domination, something which Arendt saw as an essential aim of totalitarianism.
Before reading this, my own understanding of totalitarianism related to the “totality” of control exercised. Hitler and Stalin suppressed any possible alternative sources of authority, and in that they might be contrasted with someone like Franco, who although a dictator promoted the authority of the Catholic Church in Spain, thereby granting a degree of power to an entity not entirely under his control. Arendt shows however, that such a definition is inadequate. For her, an authoritarian (but non-totalitarian) dictator persecutes his political opponents but generally does not molest citizens who avoid getting entangled with politics. In totalitarianism, a typical victim “is objectively and absolutely innocent because nothing he did or omitted to do matters or has any connection with his fate.” This, she argues, arose from the teleological outlook of the totalitarian dictators. Both the nazis and the communists saw History as a process unfolding towards an inescapable end point. For the nazis this was rule by a master race, for the communists a classless society. In both cases, there were certain groups, Jews, Kulaks, etc, that stood in the way of this endpoint. From the perspective of the regime therefore, ‘guilty’ is he who stands in the way of the natural or historical process which has passed judgment over ‘inferior races,’ over individuals ‘unfit to live,’ over ‘dying classes and decadent peoples.’
Those who perpetrate such ideologies face a problem when in power, largely because of the degree to which reality varies from the societies they promised to create. This is resolved through the constant identification of new targets, groups whose existence allegedly prevents the achievement of the new society, and who must be lined up for elimination as others were before them. Such regimes continually speak of moving onto “the next stage of the revolution.”
The book contains a very relevant warning for today, in that Arendt highlights how totalitarian ideologies will take advantage of popular discontent with the institutions of western liberal democracies, something that was particularly strong in the 1930s, especially among the “intelligentsia”. We see the same issues today, with a general hatred towards politicians and public figures for their perceived (and in many cases all too real) venality and duplicity.
There is so much more in this book. I have merely picked out a couple of themes that particularly struck home with me. It raises loads of questions in my head, but I don’t have the space to go into them here. I found it an ordeal to read. I also found it a book of tremendous insight.
Arendt focuses entirely on Naziism and Stalinism. There is hardly a mention of Maoism, though the Maoist regime fitted the category perfectly. The book was written prior to Mao’s Cultural Revolution, so maybe the true nature of that regime was not apparent to Hannah Arendt. In terms of the “origins” of totalitarianism, in my opinion the book concentrates very much on the nazis rather than the communists.
The book consists of three separate essays, on antisemitism, imperialism, and totalitarianism. In the first, Arendt suggests that the creation of the nation-state from the late 18th century onwards, was closely linked to antisemitism moving from a form of religiously based persecution to a racially based one. Whilst I would agree that modern antisemitism is a form of racial prejudice, I wasn’t entirely convinced that the medieval variety contained no racial or at least class element. In the second section, Arendt describes imperialism as the direct precursor to totalitarianism, partly because imperialism was racially based, but also because it raised the prospect of world domination, something which Arendt saw as an essential aim of totalitarianism.
Before reading this, my own understanding of totalitarianism related to the “totality” of control exercised. Hitler and Stalin suppressed any possible alternative sources of authority, and in that they might be contrasted with someone like Franco, who although a dictator promoted the authority of the Catholic Church in Spain, thereby granting a degree of power to an entity not entirely under his control. Arendt shows however, that such a definition is inadequate. For her, an authoritarian (but non-totalitarian) dictator persecutes his political opponents but generally does not molest citizens who avoid getting entangled with politics. In totalitarianism, a typical victim “is objectively and absolutely innocent because nothing he did or omitted to do matters or has any connection with his fate.” This, she argues, arose from the teleological outlook of the totalitarian dictators. Both the nazis and the communists saw History as a process unfolding towards an inescapable end point. For the nazis this was rule by a master race, for the communists a classless society. In both cases, there were certain groups, Jews, Kulaks, etc, that stood in the way of this endpoint. From the perspective of the regime therefore, ‘guilty’ is he who stands in the way of the natural or historical process which has passed judgment over ‘inferior races,’ over individuals ‘unfit to live,’ over ‘dying classes and decadent peoples.’
Those who perpetrate such ideologies face a problem when in power, largely because of the degree to which reality varies from the societies they promised to create. This is resolved through the constant identification of new targets, groups whose existence allegedly prevents the achievement of the new society, and who must be lined up for elimination as others were before them. Such regimes continually speak of moving onto “the next stage of the revolution.”
The book contains a very relevant warning for today, in that Arendt highlights how totalitarian ideologies will take advantage of popular discontent with the institutions of western liberal democracies, something that was particularly strong in the 1930s, especially among the “intelligentsia”. We see the same issues today, with a general hatred towards politicians and public figures for their perceived (and in many cases all too real) venality and duplicity.
There is so much more in this book. I have merely picked out a couple of themes that particularly struck home with me. It raises loads of questions in my head, but I don’t have the space to go into them here. I found it an ordeal to read. I also found it a book of tremendous insight.
August 28, 2017
Profound insight into totalitarian movements--not just how they happen but why, getting at the psychology behind their appeal and the social and psychological conditions that allow them to grow. The writing is clear-eyed, penetrating, and deeply unsettling.
October 18, 2024
July 15, 2024: I wrote the review below slightly less than eight years ago. Sad to say the only thing I got wrong was that I didn't think the U.S. would become a fascist nation. Everything else has just intensified or exacerbated. We finally had our Reichstag Fire moment on Friday. The rules committee meeting of the Republican National Committee last week gave us a glimpse of our future. Rather than debate, they were expected to, and did, just rubber stamp. Let the deification of the idiot dictator begin. And they even polished up Mein Kampf into a playbook so that we can see what they will do starting 12:01 Eastern Daylight Time on January 20, 2025. And they will do it as soon as they can.
Original Review, August 2016
Milan Kundera’s The Book of Laughter and Forgetting begins by recounting “a crucial moment in Czech history” when Klement Gottwald emerged on a balcony in Prague to announce the birth of the Communist Czechoslovakia. The image of him and Clementis, who took off his fur hat and placed it on Gottwald’s cold head, became as iconic for Czechs as the flag-raising on Iwo Jima has become for Americans. “Four years later,” however, “Clementis was charged with treason and hanged. The propaganda section immediately airbrushed him out of history and, obviously, out of all the photographs as well. Ever since Gottwald has stood on that balcony alone. Where Clementis once stood, there is only a bare palace wall. All that remains of Clementis is the cap on Gottwald’s head.”
When I first read The Origins of Totalitarianism 33 years ago, that scene had a strong hold on me (I later used the passage for a final exam essay question when I taught high school government). Yuri Andropov had just replaced Leonid Brezhnev as leader of the Soviet Union, despots like Erich Honecker and Nicolae Ceauşesu ruled their subjects with impunity, and in Poland Solidarność began an unstoppable revolution. The Cold War was a stark reality; people throughout the world feared the prospect of nuclear annihilation. As a child and young adult who traveled a great deal to East Germany in the 70s and early 80s, it seemed important to neglect my studies and delve into this book because it might help me to understand what I experienced on both sides of the Iron Curtain.
Yet rather than becoming an interesting historical intellectual exercise, Arendt’s analysis is once again pertinent in, of all places, the United States in the 21st century, even though I don’t think the U.S. will become a totalitarian dictatorship, even if the possible election of the 2016 Republican nominee for president causes many to think it might. It is more important to understand, as Arendt concludes, “Totalitarian solutions may well survive the fall of totalitarian regimes in the form of strong temptations which will come up whenever it seems impossible to alleviate political, social, or economic misery in a manner worthy of man.” Even though Arendt published her book in 1951 and revised it in the mid-60s, it is as contemporary as ever.
These “strong temptations” are, according to Arendt, built on a foundation of human isolation—which is distinct from loneliness and solitude. Isolation can be manipulated to create a mob, as opposed to the organic concept of “the people.” As Arendt explains with excruciating detail, anti-Semitism and imperialism were fundamental to fertilize the soil for the 20th century totalitarianism of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. But no such system, including Mao’s China and Pol Pot’s Cambodia, can completely be explained by these two ideas alone. Arendt provides elastic examples to understand how totalitarian tendencies could be turned into political tactics. This includes use of legends, “which were needed precisely because history itself would hold man responsible for deeds he had not done and for consequences he had not foreseen.” Arendt sees similarities in tribal nationalism and the seemingly contradictory pan-movements that crossed national boundaries, both of which were born from “tremendous arrogance, inherent in its self-concentration, which dares to measure a people, its past and present, by a yardstick of exalted inner qualities and inevitable rejects it visible existence, tradition, institutions, and culture.” Each leads to a historical ignorance which can be fabricated and manipulated and, as the intellectual father of modern fascism, Joseph de Maistre, articulated, a faith in irrationality in human affairs. Taken together, these concepts are “ways of escaping…common responsibility,” which is essential to lull isolated people into thinking and believing that they are part of a larger authentic culture or movement.
A mob of isolated individuals’ group identity is built on many fictions. They are more likely to accept rule by arbitrary decree because accepting “the carefully organized ignorance of specific circumstances which only an expert can know it detail” removes them from responsibility. Moreover, “What convinces” them “are not facts, and not even invented facts, but only the consistency of the system of which they are presumably a part” and they would rather live in “a lying world of consistency.” This is much easier than the hard work of civic education and engagement. It is harder to explain to these individuals, as Arendt says more forcefully, “We are not born equal; we become equal as members of a group on the strength of our decision to guarantee ourselves mutual rights.”
The 2016 Republican convention, especially when viewed through the propagandistic lens of Fox News (our friends outside of the U.S. really would have a hard time understanding how this can exist and thrive in “the land of the free and the home of the brave”), provided a Petri dish-like environment to examine how leaders with totalitarian tendencies control their “fellow-travelers.” Compare some of her observations with what we witnessed in Cleveland; how the members of the movement with “a curiously varying mixture of gullibility and cynicism” are “expected to react to the changing lying statements of the leaders and the central unchanging ideological fiction of the movement.” Or how the fellow-travelers “had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything or nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true” and “how its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd.”
It is easy to dismiss linkages of current politics to Nazism and Stalinism because of their extreme experience with eliminating “objective enemies” through terror and death camps. The current brand of American xenophobia won’t go that far—at least not in public. It has, unfortunately, in Syria and Iraq. Some of these contemporary ideas share a fantasy of labeling some “whose past justifies suspicion” and are “‘carrier[s] of tendencies’ like the carrier[s] of a disease” and, in order for the system to function, it “constantly meets with new obstacles that have to be eliminated.” Elimination doesn’t necessarily mean death; it also can be restriction, confinement, or deportation. It can include “torture” which “in this context is only the desperate and eternally futile attempt to achieve what cannot be achieved.” And it breeds “mutual suspicion” that “permeates all social relationships” and “provocation…becomes a method of dealing with…neighbor[s]” in “which everybody, willing or unwilling, is forced to follow.” Sounds a lot like Trumpism to me.
On the other hand, the blind acceptance by the majority at the 2016 Democratic convention of the empty, potentially dangerous, rhetoric of “American exceptionalism” proves, as Arendt makes clear, that totalitarian tendencies are not a matter of right or left. The idea of “American exceptionalism��� embodies her arguments about the role of legend, an almost delusional mysticism, and a perverse redefining of pluralism to make it national rather than global. Those who rightfully deride the course of the Republican Party should never fail to look into the mirror to see their own hypocrisies.
Perversely, mass media and the internet have, rather than increase genuine human contact and spread information, exacerbated many of the conditions that nurture totalitarian ideas. It is now easier to find—and accept as valid—information that supports misconceptions and lies. It is easier to find fellow-travelers while still remaining isolated behind a keyboard and screen. Just read any newspaper comments section for proof. And the anonymity that comes with it has the ironic effect of making them feel part of a movement that can deny objective reality and rationalize the worst tendencies of humanity. We are rapidly moving toward a world that Arendt foresaw, but could never have imagined its scope.
The Origins of Totalitarianism provides useful intellectual measures and markers to better understand growing movements based on xenophobia, racism, fundamentalism—religious and otherwise— and frustration. The seeming randomness of certain human events, trends, and reactions to them cause isolated individuals of all types to seek comfort and explanations that correspond to their personal Weltanschauung. “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.” Sadly, these trends will always be a part of our world. Those who can recognize them are obligated to point them out and be constantly vigilant to explain why simple solutions to complex social and political issues do not exist. We have to keep reminding others and explain why “all that remains of Clementis is the cap on Gottwald’s head.” That is the only way to fight demagoguery that manipulates isolated individuals for political gain.
Original Review, August 2016
Milan Kundera’s The Book of Laughter and Forgetting begins by recounting “a crucial moment in Czech history” when Klement Gottwald emerged on a balcony in Prague to announce the birth of the Communist Czechoslovakia. The image of him and Clementis, who took off his fur hat and placed it on Gottwald’s cold head, became as iconic for Czechs as the flag-raising on Iwo Jima has become for Americans. “Four years later,” however, “Clementis was charged with treason and hanged. The propaganda section immediately airbrushed him out of history and, obviously, out of all the photographs as well. Ever since Gottwald has stood on that balcony alone. Where Clementis once stood, there is only a bare palace wall. All that remains of Clementis is the cap on Gottwald’s head.”
When I first read The Origins of Totalitarianism 33 years ago, that scene had a strong hold on me (I later used the passage for a final exam essay question when I taught high school government). Yuri Andropov had just replaced Leonid Brezhnev as leader of the Soviet Union, despots like Erich Honecker and Nicolae Ceauşesu ruled their subjects with impunity, and in Poland Solidarność began an unstoppable revolution. The Cold War was a stark reality; people throughout the world feared the prospect of nuclear annihilation. As a child and young adult who traveled a great deal to East Germany in the 70s and early 80s, it seemed important to neglect my studies and delve into this book because it might help me to understand what I experienced on both sides of the Iron Curtain.
Yet rather than becoming an interesting historical intellectual exercise, Arendt’s analysis is once again pertinent in, of all places, the United States in the 21st century, even though I don’t think the U.S. will become a totalitarian dictatorship, even if the possible election of the 2016 Republican nominee for president causes many to think it might. It is more important to understand, as Arendt concludes, “Totalitarian solutions may well survive the fall of totalitarian regimes in the form of strong temptations which will come up whenever it seems impossible to alleviate political, social, or economic misery in a manner worthy of man.” Even though Arendt published her book in 1951 and revised it in the mid-60s, it is as contemporary as ever.
These “strong temptations” are, according to Arendt, built on a foundation of human isolation—which is distinct from loneliness and solitude. Isolation can be manipulated to create a mob, as opposed to the organic concept of “the people.” As Arendt explains with excruciating detail, anti-Semitism and imperialism were fundamental to fertilize the soil for the 20th century totalitarianism of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. But no such system, including Mao’s China and Pol Pot’s Cambodia, can completely be explained by these two ideas alone. Arendt provides elastic examples to understand how totalitarian tendencies could be turned into political tactics. This includes use of legends, “which were needed precisely because history itself would hold man responsible for deeds he had not done and for consequences he had not foreseen.” Arendt sees similarities in tribal nationalism and the seemingly contradictory pan-movements that crossed national boundaries, both of which were born from “tremendous arrogance, inherent in its self-concentration, which dares to measure a people, its past and present, by a yardstick of exalted inner qualities and inevitable rejects it visible existence, tradition, institutions, and culture.” Each leads to a historical ignorance which can be fabricated and manipulated and, as the intellectual father of modern fascism, Joseph de Maistre, articulated, a faith in irrationality in human affairs. Taken together, these concepts are “ways of escaping…common responsibility,” which is essential to lull isolated people into thinking and believing that they are part of a larger authentic culture or movement.
A mob of isolated individuals’ group identity is built on many fictions. They are more likely to accept rule by arbitrary decree because accepting “the carefully organized ignorance of specific circumstances which only an expert can know it detail” removes them from responsibility. Moreover, “What convinces” them “are not facts, and not even invented facts, but only the consistency of the system of which they are presumably a part” and they would rather live in “a lying world of consistency.” This is much easier than the hard work of civic education and engagement. It is harder to explain to these individuals, as Arendt says more forcefully, “We are not born equal; we become equal as members of a group on the strength of our decision to guarantee ourselves mutual rights.”
The 2016 Republican convention, especially when viewed through the propagandistic lens of Fox News (our friends outside of the U.S. really would have a hard time understanding how this can exist and thrive in “the land of the free and the home of the brave”), provided a Petri dish-like environment to examine how leaders with totalitarian tendencies control their “fellow-travelers.” Compare some of her observations with what we witnessed in Cleveland; how the members of the movement with “a curiously varying mixture of gullibility and cynicism” are “expected to react to the changing lying statements of the leaders and the central unchanging ideological fiction of the movement.” Or how the fellow-travelers “had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything or nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true” and “how its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd.”
It is easy to dismiss linkages of current politics to Nazism and Stalinism because of their extreme experience with eliminating “objective enemies” through terror and death camps. The current brand of American xenophobia won’t go that far—at least not in public. It has, unfortunately, in Syria and Iraq. Some of these contemporary ideas share a fantasy of labeling some “whose past justifies suspicion” and are “‘carrier[s] of tendencies’ like the carrier[s] of a disease” and, in order for the system to function, it “constantly meets with new obstacles that have to be eliminated.” Elimination doesn’t necessarily mean death; it also can be restriction, confinement, or deportation. It can include “torture” which “in this context is only the desperate and eternally futile attempt to achieve what cannot be achieved.” And it breeds “mutual suspicion” that “permeates all social relationships” and “provocation…becomes a method of dealing with…neighbor[s]” in “which everybody, willing or unwilling, is forced to follow.” Sounds a lot like Trumpism to me.
On the other hand, the blind acceptance by the majority at the 2016 Democratic convention of the empty, potentially dangerous, rhetoric of “American exceptionalism” proves, as Arendt makes clear, that totalitarian tendencies are not a matter of right or left. The idea of “American exceptionalism��� embodies her arguments about the role of legend, an almost delusional mysticism, and a perverse redefining of pluralism to make it national rather than global. Those who rightfully deride the course of the Republican Party should never fail to look into the mirror to see their own hypocrisies.
Perversely, mass media and the internet have, rather than increase genuine human contact and spread information, exacerbated many of the conditions that nurture totalitarian ideas. It is now easier to find—and accept as valid—information that supports misconceptions and lies. It is easier to find fellow-travelers while still remaining isolated behind a keyboard and screen. Just read any newspaper comments section for proof. And the anonymity that comes with it has the ironic effect of making them feel part of a movement that can deny objective reality and rationalize the worst tendencies of humanity. We are rapidly moving toward a world that Arendt foresaw, but could never have imagined its scope.
The Origins of Totalitarianism provides useful intellectual measures and markers to better understand growing movements based on xenophobia, racism, fundamentalism—religious and otherwise— and frustration. The seeming randomness of certain human events, trends, and reactions to them cause isolated individuals of all types to seek comfort and explanations that correspond to their personal Weltanschauung. “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.” Sadly, these trends will always be a part of our world. Those who can recognize them are obligated to point them out and be constantly vigilant to explain why simple solutions to complex social and political issues do not exist. We have to keep reminding others and explain why “all that remains of Clementis is the cap on Gottwald’s head.” That is the only way to fight demagoguery that manipulates isolated individuals for political gain.
August 3, 2017
لا أدري لماذا يصيبني الارتباك دائماً عندما أقرأُ مثل هذه الأعمال.. لا أدري دائماً كيف أبدأ كتابة مراجعة لكتاب بمثل هذا الحجم وتلك الكثافة والتركيز.
أعتقدُ أنّ هذا ملازمٌ لقراءة أعمال من هم مثل "حنّة أرندت".. يُلقى بعقلك الضعيف وسط دوّامةٍ من الأفكار فلا تملك إلا أن تصاب بالدهشة وبلادة الفعل والقدرة على الكتابة إثر الصدمة الناجمة عن هاته العوالم الفكريّة العاصفة.
الكتاب، عكس ما كنت أعتقد، لا يتناول الاستبداد العادي الذي نعايشه بأوطاننا والذي كنت أعتقد أنّي بقراءتي لهذا الكتاب سأجد تحليلاً دقيقاً لآليّات عمله وتجليّات وجوده.. الكتاب يتناول الصورة الأقصى والأقسى لحلول السلطة حلولاً كاملاً، لا فحسب، من حيثُ كونها سلطة، على مقدّرات الأوطان، بل وجوداً كلّياً شاملاً على أصغر دقائق الحياة المعاشة للأفراد المنزوين تحت لواءها.
عندما شرعتُ وأوغلتُ أكثر في صفحات هذا الكتاب أدركتُ أنّنا نقبع تحت ديكتاتوريّات هزليّة وهشّة لا تملك من أمرها شيئاً ولا تحافظ على وجودها بذاتها ولا تملُك أيديولوجيّة متماسكة تجعلها بمثل القوّة التي جعلت الشموليّات بهذه القوة والتكامل ما يجعلني أتساءل بكلّ صدقٍ: أبائسون نحنُ لهذه الدرجة؟! .. لكن دعونا ننصرف عن جلدِ الذاتِ الآن إلى موضوع الكتاب.
من المعلوم أنّ السلطة، من حيث كونها سلطة، تحدّ من حرّية الأفراد وذلك كونها وسيلة من وسائل السيطرة على الجموع من أجل الحصول على نظام ما يمكن من خلاله إيجاد والحفاظ على صيغ المعيشة التي تم الاتفاق عليها مسبقاً إمّا بالاتفاق أو بالتجربة والخطأ.. لكن ما يصدمك هو اللاتوقّف في السعي من أجل السيطرة الشاملة لا بُغية الحماية كونها وسيلة بل من أجل القضاء تماماً على الحرّية كمظهر بشري فطري طبيعي بل والقضاء أيضاً على مظاهر العفوية الإنسانيّة، حيثُ لا يُسمح تحت ظلّ الدولة الشموليّة بالاختلاف ولا التميّز ولا الحركة خارج إطار الأيديولوجيّة الحاكمة والحركة الكبرى.
وكما أشرنا آنفاً، يعاد صياغة المجتمع الخاضع للسلطة الشمولية صياغةً مختلفةً بُغية تحويل أفراده إلى فردٍ واحدٍ كبير مكوّن منهم.. يمكن بسهولةٍ بعد ذلك وحسبما تقتضي الحاجة استبدال أجزاء منه بأجزاء أخرى بسهولةٍ ويُسرٍ.. يمكن فيه إعداد الذوات الفرديّة إعداداً تامّاً لتجعلها متقبّلة تماماً لأنّ تقوم بدور الضحية كما تقوم بدور الجلّاد بصورةٍ مرعبة تُخرج البشر عن كونهم بشراً.
يتواجد النظام الشمولي في نظام الحزب الأوحد، وذلك انعكاس وتجلٍّ لحالة اللاتمايز وقتل الاختلافات بين الأفراد كونهم، كما أشرنا، فرد واحد متألف من أفراد، لأنّ الأحزاب إنما توجد في النظام السياسي للتعبير عن المصالح المختلفة للفئات المؤلّفة للمجتمع، ولمّا كانت هناك مصلحة واحدة فقط ووحيدة في الدولة الشمولية، ولا يجوز أن تتواجد مصلحة غيرها، كان وجود حزب واحد أو حركة واحدة معبّراً عن هذا الاتّجاه.
تعتمد الأنظمة الشموليّة (النازيّة والستالينية كمثالين أكثر اكتمالاً) على أسلوبين لفرض التغيير على المستوى الذرّي الفردي. أولهما هو أن تفرضُ تلك الأنظمةُ عزلةً مزدوجةً، من الداخل إلى الخارج والعكس، لأنّها تعمل دوماً على إعادة تغيير الواقع الموضوعي وما يتوافق مع رؤيتها الذاتيّة له.. ولما كان الأمر كذلك كانت الحاجة إلى العزلة ضروريّة للغاية كونها أولى خطوات "حماية" الأفراد من الخارج الغير شمولي.. وثانيهما هو إعادة التأهيل المستمرّة والتلقين الأيديولوجي للنخب.
ما نلاحظه هو ليس فقط وجود عزلة بين المجتمع التوتاليتاري وبين غيره من المجتمعات بل الأقسى من هذا هو وجود عزلة ما بين أفراد ذلك المجتمع وبعضه ما يجعل هناك دائماً ميل للريبة والشكّ الدائم بين الأفراد وبعضهم البعض، حيثُ كلّ شخص هو عميلٌ سرّيّ، فربّما يتم الإبلاغ عن شخص ما إذا ما اشتبه بما يقوله أو يفعله، لأنّ كلّ كلمةٍ ملتبسة هي عرضة للتأويل، والذي حين يتمّ القبض عليه والزجّ به إلى المعتقلات أو معسكرات العمل لا يُكتفى فحسب بإخفاءه وجعله على هامش الحياة والموت كذلك، بل يتمّ العمل على إظهار أنّ هذا الشخص لم يوجد أصلاً.. لا يتم محوْ الشخص فحسب بل يتمّ أيضاً محوْ ماضيه.. قد نجدُ هذا مرعباً وشديد الغرابة غير أنّ هذا التعجّب يذهب بعيداً عندما نعلم أنّ علماء النفس الروس كانوا يعملون على تطوير أساليب يتم بها محو شخص ما من ذاكرة معارفه.
ولا يتوقّف الأمر عن هذا الحدّ بل إنّ هناك شعور داخلي بالعزلة (لا الوحدة) عن الذات المتسائلة نفسها مع وأدها بمحاولات إعادة تعريف الواقع بالترويج الدائم من قبل الحركة الشموليّة بأنّ الأمور ليست على ما تبدو عليه وأنّ هناك حاسّة ما سادسة ينبغي أنْ تعْمل لرؤية ما هو خلف المرئي والمسموع والملموس.
ولمّا كان مسعى النظام الشمولي هو السلطة ولا شيء غير السلطة، ولمّا كانت السلطة في طبيعتها هي تمثيل لإرادة مجموع الأفراد المحكومين بشكلٍ ما، كان لزاماً أن يتمّ تفتيت ذلك المجموع بفرض تلك العزلة التي تحدّثنا عنها آنفاً لتنعدم القدرة على الفعل من قبل الأفراد. إذ ليس للمعزولين أيّ سلطة.
لا يكتفي فحسب النظام الشمولي بأنصاره المتحمّسين المقتنعين بأفكاره قدر ما يهتم بالفرد العادي وإفقاده القدرة على التمييز بين ما هو واقعي موضوعي وبين ما هو مزيّف أو واقعي ذاتي من جهة الحركة الشموليّة، وهنا نرى أنّ الأيديولوجيّات الشموليّة تُدركُ تماماً عجزها عن تغيير ذلك الواقع وقهر العالم الخارجي بأكمله لفرض واقعها هي على العالم لذا تلجأُ دوماً إلى تغيير الطبيعة البشرية الكامنة في الأفراد الخاضعين لحكمها.
بقي أنْ نشير إلى أنّ شخصية القائد في النظام الشمولي لا يأتيها الباطل من بيْن يديها ولا من خلفها.. يجبُ أن يظلّ القائد الأعلى على صوابٍ دائماً، ولا يُكتفى بهذا فحسب بل لا يُسمح نهائياً بانتقاد أي شخص ينتمي إلى أيّ منصبٍ حيثُ أنّ هذا الشخص وجوده معبّر ودليل عن وجود القائد نفسه، بينما لا نجدُ هذا في كثيرٍ من الأنظمة الاستبداديّة العاديّة حيث يجعل الديكتاتور مسافة بينه وبين رجاله يمكنه من خلالها التضحية بهم إذا ما ألحّت الظروف وكثُر الضغط واشتدّ.
مع وجود طغيان تكنولوجي رهيب وامتلاك الحكومات الآن قدرة رهيبة على استخراج أدق التفاصيل وثنايا المعيشة للأفراد والقدرة، وبكل سهولة، على رسم شجرة العلاقات ما بين الأفراد المحكومين وبعضهم البعض، ما مثّل أحد أحلام الدولة الشموليّة في امتلاك تلك المعرفة الشاملة وحصار الفرد، بقي لنا أن نتساءل: ما مدى احتمالية ظهور شموليّات أخرى في هذا القرن (عدا شموليّة كوريا الشماليّة البائسة).. وما مدى خطورة ظهورها الآن في تلك الفترة التكنولوجيّة المتميّزة التي تتنافس فيها مواقع التواصل الاجتماعي وتبادل المنتجات وشراءها على تحصيل أكبر قدر من المعلومات الشخصية عن الأفراد؟.. الأمر مرعب.. مرعب للغاية.
تحيّاتي.
أعتقدُ أنّ هذا ملازمٌ لقراءة أعمال من هم مثل "حنّة أرندت".. يُلقى بعقلك الضعيف وسط دوّامةٍ من الأفكار فلا تملك إلا أن تصاب بالدهشة وبلادة الفعل والقدرة على الكتابة إثر الصدمة الناجمة عن هاته العوالم الفكريّة العاصفة.
الكتاب، عكس ما كنت أعتقد، لا يتناول الاستبداد العادي الذي نعايشه بأوطاننا والذي كنت أعتقد أنّي بقراءتي لهذا الكتاب سأجد تحليلاً دقيقاً لآليّات عمله وتجليّات وجوده.. الكتاب يتناول الصورة الأقصى والأقسى لحلول السلطة حلولاً كاملاً، لا فحسب، من حيثُ كونها سلطة، على مقدّرات الأوطان، بل وجوداً كلّياً شاملاً على أصغر دقائق الحياة المعاشة للأفراد المنزوين تحت لواءها.
عندما شرعتُ وأوغلتُ أكثر في صفحات هذا الكتاب أدركتُ أنّنا نقبع تحت ديكتاتوريّات هزليّة وهشّة لا تملك من أمرها شيئاً ولا تحافظ على وجودها بذاتها ولا تملُك أيديولوجيّة متماسكة تجعلها بمثل القوّة التي جعلت الشموليّات بهذه القوة والتكامل ما يجعلني أتساءل بكلّ صدقٍ: أبائسون نحنُ لهذه الدرجة؟! .. لكن دعونا ننصرف عن جلدِ الذاتِ الآن إلى موضوع الكتاب.
من المعلوم أنّ السلطة، من حيث كونها سلطة، تحدّ من حرّية الأفراد وذلك كونها وسيلة من وسائل السيطرة على الجموع من أجل الحصول على نظام ما يمكن من خلاله إيجاد والحفاظ على صيغ المعيشة التي تم الاتفاق عليها مسبقاً إمّا بالاتفاق أو بالتجربة والخطأ.. لكن ما يصدمك هو اللاتوقّف في السعي من أجل السيطرة الشاملة لا بُغية الحماية كونها وسيلة بل من أجل القضاء تماماً على الحرّية كمظهر بشري فطري طبيعي بل والقضاء أيضاً على مظاهر العفوية الإنسانيّة، حيثُ لا يُسمح تحت ظلّ الدولة الشموليّة بالاختلاف ولا التميّز ولا الحركة خارج إطار الأيديولوجيّة الحاكمة والحركة الكبرى.
وكما أشرنا آنفاً، يعاد صياغة المجتمع الخاضع للسلطة الشمولية صياغةً مختلفةً بُغية تحويل أفراده إلى فردٍ واحدٍ كبير مكوّن منهم.. يمكن بسهولةٍ بعد ذلك وحسبما تقتضي الحاجة استبدال أجزاء منه بأجزاء أخرى بسهولةٍ ويُسرٍ.. يمكن فيه إعداد الذوات الفرديّة إعداداً تامّاً لتجعلها متقبّلة تماماً لأنّ تقوم بدور الضحية كما تقوم بدور الجلّاد بصورةٍ مرعبة تُخرج البشر عن كونهم بشراً.
يتواجد النظام الشمولي في نظام الحزب الأوحد، وذلك انعكاس وتجلٍّ لحالة اللاتمايز وقتل الاختلافات بين الأفراد كونهم، كما أشرنا، فرد واحد متألف من أفراد، لأنّ الأحزاب إنما توجد في النظام السياسي للتعبير عن المصالح المختلفة للفئات المؤلّفة للمجتمع، ولمّا كانت هناك مصلحة واحدة فقط ووحيدة في الدولة الشمولية، ولا يجوز أن تتواجد مصلحة غيرها، كان وجود حزب واحد أو حركة واحدة معبّراً عن هذا الاتّجاه.
تعتمد الأنظمة الشموليّة (النازيّة والستالينية كمثالين أكثر اكتمالاً) على أسلوبين لفرض التغيير على المستوى الذرّي الفردي. أولهما هو أن تفرضُ تلك الأنظمةُ عزلةً مزدوجةً، من الداخل إلى الخارج والعكس، لأنّها تعمل دوماً على إعادة تغيير الواقع الموضوعي وما يتوافق مع رؤيتها الذاتيّة له.. ولما كان الأمر كذلك كانت الحاجة إلى العزلة ضروريّة للغاية كونها أولى خطوات "حماية" الأفراد من الخارج الغير شمولي.. وثانيهما هو إعادة التأهيل المستمرّة والتلقين الأيديولوجي للنخب.
ما نلاحظه هو ليس فقط وجود عزلة بين المجتمع التوتاليتاري وبين غيره من المجتمعات بل الأقسى من هذا هو وجود عزلة ما بين أفراد ذلك المجتمع وبعضه ما يجعل هناك دائماً ميل للريبة والشكّ الدائم بين الأفراد وبعضهم البعض، حيثُ كلّ شخص هو عميلٌ سرّيّ، فربّما يتم الإبلاغ عن شخص ما إذا ما اشتبه بما يقوله أو يفعله، لأنّ كلّ كلمةٍ ملتبسة هي عرضة للتأويل، والذي حين يتمّ القبض عليه والزجّ به إلى المعتقلات أو معسكرات العمل لا يُكتفى فحسب بإخفاءه وجعله على هامش الحياة والموت كذلك، بل يتمّ العمل على إظهار أنّ هذا الشخص لم يوجد أصلاً.. لا يتم محوْ الشخص فحسب بل يتمّ أيضاً محوْ ماضيه.. قد نجدُ هذا مرعباً وشديد الغرابة غير أنّ هذا التعجّب يذهب بعيداً عندما نعلم أنّ علماء النفس الروس كانوا يعملون على تطوير أساليب يتم بها محو شخص ما من ذاكرة معارفه.
ولا يتوقّف الأمر عن هذا الحدّ بل إنّ هناك شعور داخلي بالعزلة (لا الوحدة) عن الذات المتسائلة نفسها مع وأدها بمحاولات إعادة تعريف الواقع بالترويج الدائم من قبل الحركة الشموليّة بأنّ الأمور ليست على ما تبدو عليه وأنّ هناك حاسّة ما سادسة ينبغي أنْ تعْمل لرؤية ما هو خلف المرئي والمسموع والملموس.
ولمّا كان مسعى النظام الشمولي هو السلطة ولا شيء غير السلطة، ولمّا كانت السلطة في طبيعتها هي تمثيل لإرادة مجموع الأفراد المحكومين بشكلٍ ما، كان لزاماً أن يتمّ تفتيت ذلك المجموع بفرض تلك العزلة التي تحدّثنا عنها آنفاً لتنعدم القدرة على الفعل من قبل الأفراد. إذ ليس للمعزولين أيّ سلطة.
لا يكتفي فحسب النظام الشمولي بأنصاره المتحمّسين المقتنعين بأفكاره قدر ما يهتم بالفرد العادي وإفقاده القدرة على التمييز بين ما هو واقعي موضوعي وبين ما هو مزيّف أو واقعي ذاتي من جهة الحركة الشموليّة، وهنا نرى أنّ الأيديولوجيّات الشموليّة تُدركُ تماماً عجزها عن تغيير ذلك الواقع وقهر العالم الخارجي بأكمله لفرض واقعها هي على العالم لذا تلجأُ دوماً إلى تغيير الطبيعة البشرية الكامنة في الأفراد الخاضعين لحكمها.
بقي أنْ نشير إلى أنّ شخصية القائد في النظام الشمولي لا يأتيها الباطل من بيْن يديها ولا من خلفها.. يجبُ أن يظلّ القائد الأعلى على صوابٍ دائماً، ولا يُكتفى بهذا فحسب بل لا يُسمح نهائياً بانتقاد أي شخص ينتمي إلى أيّ منصبٍ حيثُ أنّ هذا الشخص وجوده معبّر ودليل عن وجود القائد نفسه، بينما لا نجدُ هذا في كثيرٍ من الأنظمة الاستبداديّة العاديّة حيث يجعل الديكتاتور مسافة بينه وبين رجاله يمكنه من خلالها التضحية بهم إذا ما ألحّت الظروف وكثُر الضغط واشتدّ.
مع وجود طغيان تكنولوجي رهيب وامتلاك الحكومات الآن قدرة رهيبة على استخراج أدق التفاصيل وثنايا المعيشة للأفراد والقدرة، وبكل سهولة، على رسم شجرة العلاقات ما بين الأفراد المحكومين وبعضهم البعض، ما مثّل أحد أحلام الدولة الشموليّة في امتلاك تلك المعرفة الشاملة وحصار الفرد، بقي لنا أن نتساءل: ما مدى احتمالية ظهور شموليّات أخرى في هذا القرن (عدا شموليّة كوريا الشماليّة البائسة).. وما مدى خطورة ظهورها الآن في تلك الفترة التكنولوجيّة المتميّزة التي تتنافس فيها مواقع التواصل الاجتماعي وتبادل المنتجات وشراءها على تحصيل أكبر قدر من المعلومات الشخصية عن الأفراد؟.. الأمر مرعب.. مرعب للغاية.
تحيّاتي.
November 26, 2007
certainly in the running for the most disappointing book ever. first, it's on all these lists of the greatest books ever, plus it's got a really high rating on goodreads. plus i open it and the first few pages are breathtaking. hannah is one killer sentencecrafter. a vixen of prose. some sentences 50+ words long but you only need to read them once because they are both precise and action-packed. and oh, the promise her intros seem to hold. bold, sweeping strokes that wipe out long-held beliefs and foretell of new paradigms to come. the great human cataclysms of our times will be analysed and the true causes, forces at work through the centuries, laid bare.
but the promise is completely unrealised. i read 200 pages closely, then skimmed through 100 more. it turns into an excrutiating brick of mass psychobabble. "jews felt this way, so they acted this way, so others felt this way about them, so this made jews feel this way, so they did this."
"imperialists had these intentions, so they tried to do this, but it made people feel this way, so the imperialists changed to this methodology in order to make people feel this way." every group is a monolith which thinks and acts like an archetypal individual. which, ok, is sometimes a necessary simplification in history, but the real killer is her EVIDENCE. time and time and time again, her "evidence" is a quote from another historian, or even a quote from a contemporary NOVEL. IF YOU WANT TO PROVE A THESIS ABOUT HISTORY, YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT WITH HISTORY, NOT BY QUOTING THE CONCLUSIONS OF OTHERS. i came away pretty sure that she didn't have much of a head for figures or economics. almost no numbers at all are quoted as evidence.
even if i were convinced of her ideas, if i espoused them to someone who then challenged me to defend them, this book provides almost nothing i could use. but then of course what makes the whole thing even worse is that i don't think she's correct at all.
there is one tiny speck of possibility. hannah had obviously read thousands of books and essays and letters on the subject. i suppose it is possible that she assumed her audience would also be like her, so that she only needed to point at her sources, rather than reprise the events and people that are the subjects of history. there are multiple footnotes on most pages and about 1000 items in the bibliography.
if you want to learn how the world came to look like it does, don't read this. read Tragedy and Hope, by carroll quigley
but the promise is completely unrealised. i read 200 pages closely, then skimmed through 100 more. it turns into an excrutiating brick of mass psychobabble. "jews felt this way, so they acted this way, so others felt this way about them, so this made jews feel this way, so they did this."
"imperialists had these intentions, so they tried to do this, but it made people feel this way, so the imperialists changed to this methodology in order to make people feel this way." every group is a monolith which thinks and acts like an archetypal individual. which, ok, is sometimes a necessary simplification in history, but the real killer is her EVIDENCE. time and time and time again, her "evidence" is a quote from another historian, or even a quote from a contemporary NOVEL. IF YOU WANT TO PROVE A THESIS ABOUT HISTORY, YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT WITH HISTORY, NOT BY QUOTING THE CONCLUSIONS OF OTHERS. i came away pretty sure that she didn't have much of a head for figures or economics. almost no numbers at all are quoted as evidence.
even if i were convinced of her ideas, if i espoused them to someone who then challenged me to defend them, this book provides almost nothing i could use. but then of course what makes the whole thing even worse is that i don't think she's correct at all.
there is one tiny speck of possibility. hannah had obviously read thousands of books and essays and letters on the subject. i suppose it is possible that she assumed her audience would also be like her, so that she only needed to point at her sources, rather than reprise the events and people that are the subjects of history. there are multiple footnotes on most pages and about 1000 items in the bibliography.
if you want to learn how the world came to look like it does, don't read this. read Tragedy and Hope, by carroll quigley
Want to read
February 25, 2021It will take me the entirety of the 20s to re-read this, but I was 22 when I finished it the first time and that was damn close to forty years ago.
It's still rattling around my head. I think of phrases that I think Arendt wrote every time I see news items about the nightmare scum to the political right. (To calibrate that for you, I consider Elizabeth Warren a centrist.)
Only $2.99 on Kindle with a very, very handsome new cover.
It's still rattling around my head. I think of phrases that I think Arendt wrote every time I see news items about the nightmare scum to the political right. (To calibrate that for you, I consider Elizabeth Warren a centrist.)
Only $2.99 on Kindle with a very, very handsome new cover.
May 4, 2012
Way back when I read this, I recall being somewhat surprised at how few works she actually referenced in this tripartite tome, especially in the latter two sections on Imperialism and Totalitarianism; and, for the first of these, the surprise turned to incredulity when it occurred to me that she appeared to be basing a considerable part of her argument—virtually the entirety regarding the interaction between Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa, IIRC—upon the most famous fictional work by Joseph Conrad. Arendt is a brilliant woman and a deep thinker, but that struck me as rather suspect. At least, this is what sticks with me in the here and now—it could very well be that I'm doing Arendt a disservice. But, fuck it. When the memory banks are sketchy, I riff away with whatever appears most recognizable upon the faded deposit slips.
John Lukacs dismissed this book with contempt, tagging Arendt's writing within as shrilly verbose and her method as unhistorical, and flatly stating that her section on Totalitarianism had initially been crafted solely in regard to the Nazis, but that—with the Cold War hot and suddenly on everybody's mind—she hastily worked in references to the Communist juggernaut in an effort to cash in on the burgeoning interest and score the big bucks. Now, that's just how Lukacs rolls—my remembrance is of finding the final part tough-going but thought-provoking. Arendt is one of those writers who may require more than one passage through in order to gleam the point in toto, so dense with material does the prose prove to be. Sadly, the details have slipped away like the toxically heady aroma of a nigh-liquid butter fart bugled forth in the waning glow of a summer barbecue. At times I'm tempted to dig it out and give it another try—come on, you know what I'm talking about—but I'm unfortunately far from convinced that it would prove to be worth fitting in ahead of so many other potentially brilliant books.
John Lukacs dismissed this book with contempt, tagging Arendt's writing within as shrilly verbose and her method as unhistorical, and flatly stating that her section on Totalitarianism had initially been crafted solely in regard to the Nazis, but that—with the Cold War hot and suddenly on everybody's mind—she hastily worked in references to the Communist juggernaut in an effort to cash in on the burgeoning interest and score the big bucks. Now, that's just how Lukacs rolls—my remembrance is of finding the final part tough-going but thought-provoking. Arendt is one of those writers who may require more than one passage through in order to gleam the point in toto, so dense with material does the prose prove to be. Sadly, the details have slipped away like the toxically heady aroma of a nigh-liquid butter fart bugled forth in the waning glow of a summer barbecue. At times I'm tempted to dig it out and give it another try—come on, you know what I'm talking about—but I'm unfortunately far from convinced that it would prove to be worth fitting in ahead of so many other potentially brilliant books.
July 31, 2015
من أهم الكتب التي قرأتها هذا العام، ولعله أكثر الكتب التي أطلت في تأملها والاقتباس منها ومراجعتها، ربما بحكم اعتقادي براهنية الظاهرة أو إرهاصاتها رغم عدم تحققها كدولة في تاريخنا (العربي الإسلامي) القديم أو الحديث، واستهلمت من الكتاب مقالي "أيديولوجيا الوهم: النزعة المؤامراتية وسردياتها"، كما أضاء لي جوانب عديدة لتفسير ظاهرة داعش (وبعض من غيرها)، سايكولوجيّاً وسوسيولوجيّاً وحركيّاً.
وحنه تبقى مثالاً نادراً وجميلاً حقّاً يتحدّى الزعم الذكوري –الواقعي غالباً- بلا إبداعية النساء، وهي مناسبة للتخلي المؤقت عن النرجسية المعرفية الذكورية، مؤقتاً فقط.
وحنه تبقى مثالاً نادراً وجميلاً حقّاً يتحدّى الزعم الذكوري –الواقعي غالباً- بلا إبداعية النساء، وهي مناسبة للتخلي المؤقت عن النرجسية المعرفية الذكورية، مؤقتاً فقط.
December 12, 2019
By the title, I might have gotten the impression that this might have been a full history and treatise on all Totalitarian regimes, but I'm not at all unhappy to see how the author narrowed it down to the full wealth of circumstances that gave rise to Nazi Germany and, to a lesser degree, Stalin's Russia.
More than that, Hannah Arendt proves to be an erudite master at breaking down huge subjects and many causes into easily digestible chunks.
The focus begins on the actual origins of racial targeting and the somewhat interesting disconnect between real grievances and a targeted terror movement starting early with the Rothschild banking, 19th century propaganda, and political climates including the Dreyfus account. (Very interesting stuff here.)
It leads, naturally enough, into MORE of the same charges and racially-charged Us/Them mentalities and exactly how the machinations of a few could inculcate a whole nation. The trick is to slowly, surely, make everyone guilty of the same kind of injustice, formalize it and redirect all culpability toward the Leader and wash your hands of the reality, and then hold on for dear life as everyone else you know is forced into looking over their shoulders to see if they might be next on the chopping block.
It's perfectly understandable. Totalitarianism is the utter eradication of self and self-destiny under the auspices of a single, irrepressible force. It runs on fear and distrust. Everyone under Hitler was in an untenable position and knew they could lose favor at any time.
Stalin worked the same way. The results were almost always similar as a whole. Many people died, and no one knew how to go on except by hanging on to the system that brought them there.
Ideology didn't really matter. Terror was the driving force, carried along by a fierce logical insistence that they were always right. Not even dissent mattered. The logical progression, taken to its extremes, was always used as the ultimate rationality.
This book showed us a wealth of information in every step. Starting out with imperialism and ending with totalitarianism, this book also gives us some other very important insights.
Believe it or not, they're insights that apply as equal now as they did then, and not as a pithy or ironic commentary on this or that politician we hate.
Mostly, it starts out as finding an Other to hate. It could just be any Us versus Them. Dehumanize them. Blame all your problems on them. And then make your supporters do something horrible. Turn your whole nation into people who are already guilty. Make sure they remain confused and uncertain. And then turn up the heat, making them all do worse things, progressively, until they see no way out but forward. Give them no other choice.
Easy blueprint.
Who is next? Women versus men? Another Race s**tstorm? Blue Vs Red? Rich versus the poor?
Quite sobering to see how we're pushing ourselves closer and closer to Totalitarianism all the time. All we need is one single Leader who can blackmail us all into doing his bidding, and here we go!
More than that, Hannah Arendt proves to be an erudite master at breaking down huge subjects and many causes into easily digestible chunks.
The focus begins on the actual origins of racial targeting and the somewhat interesting disconnect between real grievances and a targeted terror movement starting early with the Rothschild banking, 19th century propaganda, and political climates including the Dreyfus account. (Very interesting stuff here.)
It leads, naturally enough, into MORE of the same charges and racially-charged Us/Them mentalities and exactly how the machinations of a few could inculcate a whole nation. The trick is to slowly, surely, make everyone guilty of the same kind of injustice, formalize it and redirect all culpability toward the Leader and wash your hands of the reality, and then hold on for dear life as everyone else you know is forced into looking over their shoulders to see if they might be next on the chopping block.
It's perfectly understandable. Totalitarianism is the utter eradication of self and self-destiny under the auspices of a single, irrepressible force. It runs on fear and distrust. Everyone under Hitler was in an untenable position and knew they could lose favor at any time.
Stalin worked the same way. The results were almost always similar as a whole. Many people died, and no one knew how to go on except by hanging on to the system that brought them there.
Ideology didn't really matter. Terror was the driving force, carried along by a fierce logical insistence that they were always right. Not even dissent mattered. The logical progression, taken to its extremes, was always used as the ultimate rationality.
This book showed us a wealth of information in every step. Starting out with imperialism and ending with totalitarianism, this book also gives us some other very important insights.
Believe it or not, they're insights that apply as equal now as they did then, and not as a pithy or ironic commentary on this or that politician we hate.
Mostly, it starts out as finding an Other to hate. It could just be any Us versus Them. Dehumanize them. Blame all your problems on them. And then make your supporters do something horrible. Turn your whole nation into people who are already guilty. Make sure they remain confused and uncertain. And then turn up the heat, making them all do worse things, progressively, until they see no way out but forward. Give them no other choice.
Easy blueprint.
Who is next? Women versus men? Another Race s**tstorm? Blue Vs Red? Rich versus the poor?
Quite sobering to see how we're pushing ourselves closer and closer to Totalitarianism all the time. All we need is one single Leader who can blackmail us all into doing his bidding, and here we go!
December 14, 2019
ملاحظة قبل البدأ: لقد قرأت هذا الكتاب قبل خمسة أشهر تقريباً لذلك أعذروني أذا تجاوزت بضع فقرات. وكذلك ستكون المراجعة طويلة جداً وجافة قليلاً.
التوتاليتارية هو مصطلح غير دارج في استعمالاتنا اليومية وهو يشير إلى أنظمة الدولة القمعية التي بزغت بعد الحرب العالمية الأولى. تلك الأنظمة التي تحكم من قبل شخصية متفردة وهي تمثل محور السلطة والتشريع في البلد المعني . قد تتشابه الدكتاتورية مع التوتاليتارية في كثير من النقاط لكن الأخيرة تكون أكثر شمولية وذات أسس فلسفية أمتن في الأرض. قد أتت الكاتبة بهذا الكتاب لكي تفسر كيفية نشأة هذا النمط من الدول القهرية والأسس التي تقوم عليها هذه البلدان وقد اتخذت المانيا النازية وروسيا الستالينة كمثال في بحثها هذا.
"أن افتتان الدهماء بالشر والجريمة افتتاناً أكيداً ليس بالأمر الجديد. إذ لطالما ثبت أن الرعاع يرحبون (بأعمال العنف قائلين بإعاجاب: لئن كان ذلك غير جميل ,فإنه بالغ القوة, بالتأكيد)"
تبدأ الكاتبة في الفصل الأول بتبيين الطبقات الاجتماعية التي تحتضن الحركات التوتاليتارية عند نشأتها وهذه الطبقة أو الفئة التي سمتها المؤلفة بال-الجماهير- هي الطبقة العامة من الشعب الذين يشكلون الغالبية العظمى من السكان الذين لا ينتمون لحزب معين ولا يحملون أراء سياسية قوية وكذلك يكونون عديمي المصالح الاقتصادية فهم أبسط وأتفه من أن يقرروا حياتهم بأنفسهم فهؤلاء يبحثون عن التنظيم والوحدة والحساس بالانتماء في كيان أكبر . تركز الحركات التوتاليتارية أغلب دعاياتها ومنشوراتها على الجماهير لأنها تبحث فقط عن الأعداد ولا يهمها نوع أتباعها على عكس الحركات السياسية التي عادة ما توجه خطابها إلى فئة معينة –يا معشر المثقفين,الأطباء,الجنود,...- التي تحصل على تعاطف وولاء مطلق من فئة صغيرة فقط. أن الحركات التوتاليتارية لم تستهدف الرعاع فقط بل كذلك قد أثرت على المثقفين والنخبة الفكرية وهذا ما يجده المرء غريباً فكيف يقع المثقفون في هذا الفخ الواضح ؟ في الواقع في أجواء أوربا في تلك الحقبة كان المثقفون المفكرون الذين عاصروا الحرب العالمية الأولى والتقلبات السياسية والأوضاع المختلفة في حالة حيرة وضياع وشبه منعدمي المعنى في الحياة لذلك كانوا على استعداد لتبني الفكر الجديد من أجل التجربة الفريدة والإثارة التي يصاحبها هذا التيه أو الضياع والصراع لأجل أيجاد المعنى للحياة. وكذلك كانت الرغبة لدى الفنانين والمفكرين الثوريين الذي يسعون إلى أحداث ثورة ضد الطبقات الاجتماعية المحافظة بحفلات شايهم ورسمياتهم ونبذهم للعبقريات والأفكار الحديثة لذلك كان يجب تدمير هذه الطبقة لكي يستطيع العبقري ممارسة حريته بجنون من دون نقد أخلاقي أو اجتماعي.
"أن أول صفة في قائد الجماهير هي أن يكون معصوماً بصورة دائمة,وهو لا يقبل الخطأ على الدوام"
في الفصل الثاني تتكلم الكاتبة عن الدعاية وأهميتها فحسب تعبيراها فالعباقرة والجهلة سينظمون مباشرة إلى هذه الحركة لكن دعايتها تركز على الجماهير المذكورة أنفاً. ان من خصائص الدعاية التوتاليتارية هي الصراحة التي لا تمنحها أي حركة سياسية أخرى فهتلر مثلاً عن صعوده لم يتغنى بالمثل العليا وحقوق الإنسان وغيرها من هذه الأمور بل ��قد نشر هتلر كتابه –كفاحي- قبل فوزه بثمان سنوات تقريبا لذلك كان الشعب على اطلاع على أراء وتوجهات هتلر بخصوص العرق الاري واليهود وغيرها الكثير. ومن أساليب الدعاية القوية لهذه الحركات هي الاغتيالات ولا أقصد هنا الاغتيالات السياسية لا بل تلك التي تكون على مستوى متوسط أي اغتيال الأساتذة الجامعيين والمثقفين المعارضين لكي تنشر الرعب من الاعتراض العلني على أفكارهم.هذا من دون ذكر التهديدات التي تمارسها هذه الحركات بحق الشعب فهي تهديدات بالابادة والخسران –يمكن تشبيهه بالتبشير والتهديد الديني بمعنى أن لم تكن سيأتيك عذاب أليم-. من أهم الأفكار الدعائية التي استخدمتها هذه الحركات هو مبدأ عصمة القائد .فهتلر لم تكن حماسته الخطابية هي السبب الذي جعله مقدس لكن منطقيته المحضة والفكر والعلمي الذي أتبعه حزبه ومناقشاتهم المنطقية والخالية من العواطف خصوصا في عالم بدأ ينسحب من العواطف الدينية نحو الثوابت العملية المريحة . ولكي تبقي على زخم الجماهير وتستطيع الحركات توجيههم تقوم بصنع عدو وهمي أو حقيقي فهو غير مهم –اليهود والرأسمالية – فينسبون كل شر وكل ألم في هذا العالم إلى هذا العدو الجبار الذي يجب القضاء عليه لتخليص هذا العالم وبناء عالم نقي ومتناسق.
أن التنظيمات التوتاليتارية تتسم بتراتبية غريبة ففي الواجهة الرئيسية تجد هناك المتعاطفون باختصار الجماهير الذي لا يتدخلون في قرارات الحزب لكنهم يستقبلون كل شيء وينشروه ويحوروه لكي يصبح مقبول من جميع الطبقات ويوصلوه حد التقديس وهناك المنتسبين وهم الدائرة الذي يكونون في مركز المتعاطفون وهؤلاء هم المناضلين المجاهدين لأجل الحركة ,الأشخاص المستعدين للتضحية بحياتهم لأجل القضية.تكشف لهذه الطبقة الكثير من الحقائق الداخلية للحزب مما يعطيهم نظرة تفوقية على المتعاطفين السذج الذين لا يعرفون الحقيقة ولا يدركوها. وفي داخل هذه الطبقة توجد طبقة أعلى تملك معلومات لا يملكها هؤلاء وفي وسطهم توجد طبقة أخرى وهكذا . يوفر هذا النظام الحلزوني ركيزة مهمة في بناء هذه الأنظمة فأنت أيا كان منصبك داخل الحزب لا تعلم كل شيء ولا تستطيع فهم كل شيء لذلك ستؤكد كل الشائعات وتنفيها في نفس الوقت لأنك-حسب ظنك- أن عقلك قاصر, وأن عقل الحزب يدرك المصلحة العليا .فمثلا لو أخبرك شخص أن الحزب بدء بتصفية كبار السن فعقلك سينفي هذا الخبر لأن من المستحيل على الحزب أن يقوم بهذا الفعل القاسي الهمجي ولكن أن قام به فذلك بسبب أن الحزب يجد أن كبار السن هم عالة على المجتمع ومجرد أفواه تستهلك الغذاء ��ن دون أنتاج فكري قوي .فأن أتضح أن الخبر صحيح فستجد أن الحزب قد أتخذ الخيار المنطقي والعقلاني وأن كان كاذب فأن الحزب يهتم بالحياة والإنسانية والمثل العليا. لذلك نجد أن كثير من الأشخاص الذين نجوا من محارق اليهود صرحوا أنهم كانوا يسمعون عن محارق اليهود لكن لا أحد يصدقها بل أن الكثير كان يرى منشئات الحرق ويرى اليهود يدخلون ولا يخرجون وبقوا يصدقون أنها مجرد منشئات للاستحمام .فهذا النمط من التفكير المزدوج الذي يهيئك نفسياً لافضع الأعمال التي تقوم بها الدولة وفي نفس الوقت تنفيها وتضل في حالة ذبذبة وشك إلى أن يصدمك الواقع وفي تلك اللحظة تكون قد تهيأت لكل شيء ومستعد للدفاع عن كل ما تقوم به الدولة. ومن الخصائص المهمة للحفاظ على الأعضاء داخل الحزب هو اعتراف الحزب بجرائمه فعندها لا يمكنك الخروج من هذا التنظيم إلى الواقع الذي يعتبر الأفعال التي قمت بها داخل الحزب أفعال غير إنسانية وحقيقة أن الحزب يعترف بجرائمه بل يفتخر بها لا تعينك على أيجاد حضن يتقبلك أن حاولت الخروج.
من الخصائص الأخرى لهذه الحركات هو الحركة الدائم للسلطة حول المركز بمعنى أن الجميع تتغير مواقعهم ومناصبهم وأماكن عملهم على الدوام ما عدا القائد الأساسي فهو الشيء الوحيد الثابت في هذا النظام الحركي العشوائي للشخص الذي ينظر من الخارج وتوفر هذه الحركة فائدتين مهمتين : الأولى تتمثل بأن القائد –المركز- يصبح عصي على الأبدال فمبجرد اختفائه سينهار النظام بأكمله ويتفكك الشيء الذي يحافظ على حركة هذه الماكنة السياسية. والثانية أن الأعضاء سيبتعدون عن أماكنهم المألوفة ومراكز قوتهم بشكل متكرر مما يمنعهم من تخزين القوة وتشكيل قطب قد يشكل تهديد للمركز في المستقبل وهذا واضح في مجازر ستالين حيث كان يبيد طبقة كل فترة ويبدل مكانها طبقة جديدة وكذلك بالنسبة للمسؤولين فمجرد أن يصبح المسؤول قوي بشكل طفيف كان ستالين يمحيه.
"فحيث يبدأ السر, تبدأ السلطة الواقعية."
في الفصل الثالث تتكلم الكاتبة عن شكل هذه الأنظمة في السلطة وهي بصورة عامة على نوعين : الأول وهو النمط المنفتح ذو الرسالة الموجهة إلى البشرية وهو النازي فهذا النمط من الحركات يكون في حركة دائمة غير متوقفة من الحروب والثورات ضد العالم حتى ينشروا جميع أفكارهم في كل بقاع الأرض ثم يبدأ بعدها تصفية التنظيم داخليا والثورات الداخلية في حالة مستمرة لذلك لم يكن السلم خياراً مقبولاً أمام هتلر فالسلم يعني توقف الحركة وانهيار مبادئ الحركة لذلك أضطر أن يبقى في حالة حرب دائمة إلى أن دمر نفسه بنفسه في روسيا. أما النوع الثاني فهو النمط المنغلق على نفسه ودولته وهو النمط الروسي الذي يوجه كل طاقاته وقوته نحو الداخل نحو التصفيات السياسية والتلقين السياسي وبناء أنما�� التفكير مقولبة للجماهير لكي يسهل التعامل معها . ومما تشترك فيه الحركتان هو الثنائية أ لا ثنائية الدولة والحزب ففي هذه الحركات التي نهضت في البداية ضد التنظيم والقوانين تصبح الحدود بين الدولة والحزب رمادية وغير واضحة بل حتى بين أجهزة الدولة نفسها لذلك يوفر هذا الجو من التشوش وعدم معرفة من الجهة المسؤولة عن من يوفر احتراماً لكل الجهات والفرق.
"ذلك أن العفوية,من حيث كونها كذلك,وبطابعها غير المتوقع,هي أعظم العوائق الحائلة دون ممارسة سيادة كلية على الإنسان."
تستعمل الأنظمة التوتاليتارية الشرطة السرية لكي تحكم قبضتها على الشعب وكي تؤورق أحلام كل من يفكر في الوقوف أمام السلطة وتكتسب هذه الشرطة صلاحيات وقوة بحيث تنتشر في البيوت بين الأب وأبنه فأنت لا يمكنك الثقة بعائلتك نفسها . والهدف الأساسي هو الحصول السيطرة المطلقة على الشعب فاخضاع الشعب وعزله بعيداً عن كل تأثيرات غير مرغوبة لكي يصبح مطواع وسهل التلقين هو أحد أهم أهداف هذه الحركات
"عديدة هي الوسائل المستخدمة في سبيل القضاء على الطابع الفريد في الشخصية البشرية."
في الفصل الرابع والأخير تتكلم الكاتبة عن الأيديولوجية التي تتبعها هذه الحركات من تدمير الذات البشرية ونشر الارهاب المدمر في كل مناحي الحياة ومحاولتها للقضاء على جميع أنواع الحريات وتحصين أفرادها ضد العالم الخارجي وحقائقه الموضوعية التي لا تتناسب مع الحركة الدائمة للحركة التوتاليتارية المبنية على أسس غير معترف بها خارج أراضي الدول التوتاليتارية.
في النهاية. لا أبالغ أن قلت أن هذا الكتاب واحد من أفضل الكتب التي قرأتها في حياتي رغم أن هناك أجزاء لم افهمها بالكامل لكن كمية الأشياء التي استطعت استيعابها كانت بحق رائعة . فارندت هنا تعطينا وجهة نظر استثنائية لتحلل الأسباب والتحركات التي قامت على أثرها الحركات التوتاليتارية . أرندت لا تعطيك معلومات جديدة بالضرورة فهي تستخدم الوقائع لتعطيك صورة مقنعة عن التصورات السياسية التي حملتها تلك الأنظمة وتبقى أنت القارئ في حالة (كيف لم انتبه لذلك من قبل) طوال الكتاب . رغم صعوبة لغة الكتاب -ويجدر الإشارة انه ليس ذنب المترجم - وليس ذنب الكاتبة فهي لم تستخدم المصطلحات التقنية والمعقدة بل لغة بسيطة لكنها تجبرك على قرأتها ببطئ , ببطئ شديد حتى يصبح الكتاب كالعذاب الممل الذي ترغب بتركه ولكن يمسكك بمعلوماته وأسلوبه في نفس الوقت بصورة تجعلك مسحورا أمامه ببساطه وعاجز بشكل كلي . فأنت تقرأ ببطء لأنك خائف أن تفهم شيء بالخطأ أو تتجاوز كلمة مفتاحية في هذا البحث.
December 16, 2023
Initially I've made a mistake approaching this book as a kind of narrative history. I was subconsciously looking for a comprehensive and chronological treatise on the subject. This approach did not work as this book was obviously not the one. And when I stopped trying to read it in that way and approached it as a very long essay, full of sophisticated arguments, it suddenly made much more sense to me. Another difficulty I've had is her prose: it is quite dense, and although very logical it is packed with ideas in long paragraphs. So it was initially a bit difficult to follow and took time to get used to. But when I overcome this difficulties, this book has appeared to be enriching reading experience. The third part devoted to the totalitarianism per se was probably the most familiar to me in terms of ideas and the facts. But the first two were more revelatory. They were devoted to the origins of the modern antisemitism according to Arendt and the emergence of imperialism respectively. One might argue that Arendt talks about actually pretty mature late imperialism, not the emergence of the phenomena per se. But she has got a lot of interesting, not -trivial ideas to share on the atmosphere in Europe at the first half of the 20th century. I will briefly highlight only two of them which I under appreciated before: pan-movements as the origins of both Russian and German totalitarianism; the significance of post WW1 almost random division of Europe (especially post Habsburg and Post Ottoman) into so-called nation states and how it was done by a degree (or a "peace -treaty"), the amount of stateless people in Europe it all caused. I knew how it has affected Germany, but did not pay sufficient attention how it has affected the rest of Europe. (And I am even not talking about the Middle East here). I would not go into the details of her arguments here. But I will add a few lengthy excepts from the book to demonstrate her style and to show the density and sophistication of her arguments.
The read that unfortunately hasn't lost its relevance at all since it was written.
"…it is this pseudomysticism that is the stamp of bureaucracy when it becomes a form of government. Since the people it dominates never really know why something is happening, and a rational interpretation of laws does not exist, there remains only one thing that counts, the brutal naked event itself. What happens to one then becomes subject to an interpretation whose possibilities are endless, unlimited by reason and unhampered by knowledge. Within the framework of such endless interpretative speculation, so characteristic of all branches of Russian pre-revolutionary literature, the whole texture of life and world assume a mysterious secrecy and depth. There is a dangerous charm in this aura because of its seemingly inexhaustible richness; interpretation of suffering has a much larger range than that of action for the former goes on in the inwardness of the soul and releases all the possibilities of human imagination, whereas the latter is constantly checked, and possibly led into absurdity, by outward consequence and controllable experience. One of the most glaring differences between the old-fashioned rule by bureaucracy and the up-to-date totalitarian brand is that Russia’s and Austria’s pre-war rulers were content with an idle radiance of power and, satisfied to control its outward destinies, left the whole inner life of the soul intact. Totalitarian bureaucracy, with a more complete understanding of the meaning of absolute power, intruded upon the private individual and his inner life with equal brutality. The result of this radical efficiency has been that the inner spontaneity of people under its rule was killed along with their social and political activities, so that the merely political sterility under the older bureaucracies was followed by total sterility under totalitarian rule. The age which saw the rise of the pan-movements, however, was still happily ignorant of total sterilization. On the contrary, to an innocent observer (as most Westerners were) the so-called Eastern soul appeared to be incomparably richer, its psychology more profound, its literature more meaningful than that of the ‘shallow’ Western democracies. This psychological and literary adventure into the ‘depths’ of suffering did not come to pass in Austria-Hungary because its literature was mainly German-language literature in general. Instead of inspiring profound humbug, Austrian bureaucracy rather caused its greatest modern writer to become the humorist and critic of the whole matter. Franz Kafka knew well enough the superstition of fate which possesses people who live under the perpetual rule of accidents, the inevitable tendency to read a special superhuman meaning into happenings whose rational significance is beyond the knowledge and understanding of the concerned. He was well aware of the weird attractiveness of such peoples, their melancholy and beautifully sad folk tales which seemed so superior to the lighter and brighter literature of more fortunate peoples. He exposed the pride in necessity as such, even the necessity of evil, and the nauseating conceit which identifies evil and misfortune with destiny. The miracle is only that he could do this in a world in which the main elements of this atmosphere were not fully articulated; he trusted his great powers of imagination to draw all the necessary conclusions and, as it were, to complete what reality had somehow neglected to bring into full focus (p 320)"
"Their equality is an equality of rights only, that is, an equality of human purpose; yet behind this equality of human purpose lies, according to Jewish-Christian tradition, another equality, expressed in the concept of one common origin beyond human history, human nature, and human purpose – the common origin in the mythical, unidentifiable Man who alone is God’s creation. This divine origin is the metaphysical concept on which the political equality of purpose may be based, the purpose of establishing mankind on earth. Nineteenth-century positivism and progressivism perverted this purpose of human equality when they set out to demonstrate what cannot be demonstrated, namely, that men are equal by nature and different only by history and circumstances, so that they can be equalized not by rights, but by circumstances and education. Nationalism and its concept of a ‘national mission’ perverted the national concept of mankind as a family of nations into a hierarchical structure where differences of history and organization were misinterpreted as differences between men, residing in natural origin. Racism, which denied the common origin of man and repudiated the common purpose of establishing humanity, introduced the concept of the divine origin of one people as contrasted with all others, thereby covering the temporary and changeable product of human endeavor with a pseudomystical cloud of divine eternity and finality. This finality is what acts as the common denominator between the pan-movements’ philosophy and race concepts, and explains their inherent affinity in theoretical terms. Politically, it is not important whether God or nature is thought to be the origin of a people; in both cases, no matter how exalted the claim for one’s own people, peoples are transformed into animal species so that a Russian appears as different from a German as a wolf is from a fox. A ‘divine people’ lives in a world in which it is the born persecutor of all other weaker species, or the born victim of all other stronger species. Only the rules of the animal kingdom can possibly apply to its political destinies. The tribalism of the pan-movements with its concept of the ‘divine origin’ of one people owed part of its great appeal to its contempt for liberal individualism,fn40 the ideal of mankind and the dignity of man. No human dignity is left if the individual owes his value only to the fact that he happens to be born a German or a Russian; but there is, in its stead, a new coherence, a sense of mutual reliability among all members of the people which indeed was very apt to assuage the rightful apprehensions of modern men as to what might happen to them if, isolated individuals in an atomized society, they were not protected by sheer numbers and enforced uniform coherence. Similarly, the ‘belt of mixed populations,’ more exposed than other sections of Europe to the storms of history and less rooted in Western tradition, felt earlier than other European peoples the terror of the ideal of humanity and of the Judaeo-Christian faith in the common origin of man. They did not harbor any illusions about the ‘noble savage,’ because they knew something of the potentialities of evil without research into the habits of cannibals. The more peoples know about one another, the less they want to recognize other peoples as their equals, the more they recoil from the ideal of humanity. The appeal of tribal isolation and master race ambitions was partly due to an instinctive feeling that mankind, whether a religious or humanistic ideal, implies a common sharing of responsibility. The shrinking of geographic distances made this a political actuality of the first order.fn42 It also made idealistic talk about mankind and the dignity of man an affair of the past simply because all these fine and dreamlike notions, with their time-honored traditions, suddenly assumed a terrifying timeliness. Even insistence on the sinfulness of all men, of course absent from the phraseology of the liberal protagonists of ‘mankind,’ by no means suffices for an understanding of the fact – which the people understood only too well – that the idea of humanity, purged of all sentimentality, has the very serious consequence that in one form or another men must assume responsibility for all crimes committed by men, and that eventually all nations will be forced to answer for the evil committed by all others. Tribalism and racism are the very realistic, if very destructive, ways of escaping this predicament of common responsibility. Their metaphysical rootlessness, which matched so well the territorial uprootedness of the nationalities it first seized, was equally well suited to the needs of the shifting masses of modern cities and was therefore grasped at once by totalitarianism; even the fanatical adoption by the Bolsheviks of the greatest antinational doctrine, Marxism, was counteracted and Pan-Slav propaganda reintroduced in Soviet Russia because of the tremendous isolating value of these theories in themselves." (P310)
(the bold is added above for empathises.
"The inadequacy of the Peace Treaties has often been explained by the fact that the peacemakers belonged to a generation formed by experiences in the pre-war era, so that they never quite realized the full impact of the war whose peace they had to conclude. There is no better proof of this than their attempt to regulate the nationality problem in Eastern and Southern Europe through the establishment of nation-states and the introduction of minority treaties. If the wisdom of the extension of a form of government which even in countries with old and settled national tradition could not handle the new problems of world politics had become questionable, it was even more doubtful whether it could be imported into an area which lacked the very conditions for the rise of nation-states: homogeneity of population and rootedness in the soil. But to assume that nation-states could be established by the methods of the Peace Treaties was simply preposterous. Indeed: ‘One glance at the demographic map of Europe should be sufficient to show that the nation-state principle cannot be introduced into Eastern Europe.’fn3 The Treaties lumped together many peoples in single states, called some of them ‘state people’ and entrusted them with the government, silently assumed that others (such as the Slovaks in Czechoslovakia, or the Croats and Slovenes in Yugoslavia) were equal partners in the government, which of course they were not,fn4 and with equal arbitrariness created out of the remnant a third group of nationalities called ‘minorities,’ thereby adding to the many burdens of the new states the trouble of observing special regulations for part of the population." (p352)
"No paradox of contemporary politics is filled with a more poignant irony than the discrepancy between the efforts of well-meaning idealists who stubbornly insist on regarding as ‘inalienable’ those human rights, which are enjoyed only by citizens of the most prosperous and civilized countries, and the situation of the rightless themselves. Their situation has deteriorated just as stubbornly, until the internment camp – prior to the second World War the exception rather than the rule for the stateless – has become the routine solution for the problem of domicile of the ‘displaced persons.’ Even the terminology applied to the stateless has deteriorated. The term ‘stateless’ at least acknowledged the fact that these persons had lost the protection of their government and required international agreements for safeguarding their legal status. The postwar term ‘displaced persons’ was invented during the war for the express purpose of liquidating statelessness once and for all by ignoring its existence. Nonrecognition of statelessness always means repatriation, i.e., deportation to a country of origin, which either refuses to recognize the prospective repatriate as a citizen, or, on the contrary, urgently wants him back for punishment. (P 365)"
"The greater the ratio of stateless and potentially stateless to the population at large – in prewar France it had reached 10 per cent of the total – the greater the danger of a gradual transformation into a police state. It goes without saying that the totalitarian regimes, where the police had risen to the peak of power, were especially eager to consolidate this power through the domination over vast groups of people, who, regardless of any offenses committed by individuals, found themselves anyway beyond the pale of the law."
"That the Nazis eventually met with so disgracefully little resistance from the police in the countries they occupied, and that they were able to organize terror as much as they did with the assistance of these local police forces, was due at least in part to the powerful position which the police had achieved over the years in their unrestricted and arbitrary domination of stateless and refugees."(p 377)
The read that unfortunately hasn't lost its relevance at all since it was written.
"…it is this pseudomysticism that is the stamp of bureaucracy when it becomes a form of government. Since the people it dominates never really know why something is happening, and a rational interpretation of laws does not exist, there remains only one thing that counts, the brutal naked event itself. What happens to one then becomes subject to an interpretation whose possibilities are endless, unlimited by reason and unhampered by knowledge. Within the framework of such endless interpretative speculation, so characteristic of all branches of Russian pre-revolutionary literature, the whole texture of life and world assume a mysterious secrecy and depth. There is a dangerous charm in this aura because of its seemingly inexhaustible richness; interpretation of suffering has a much larger range than that of action for the former goes on in the inwardness of the soul and releases all the possibilities of human imagination, whereas the latter is constantly checked, and possibly led into absurdity, by outward consequence and controllable experience. One of the most glaring differences between the old-fashioned rule by bureaucracy and the up-to-date totalitarian brand is that Russia’s and Austria’s pre-war rulers were content with an idle radiance of power and, satisfied to control its outward destinies, left the whole inner life of the soul intact. Totalitarian bureaucracy, with a more complete understanding of the meaning of absolute power, intruded upon the private individual and his inner life with equal brutality. The result of this radical efficiency has been that the inner spontaneity of people under its rule was killed along with their social and political activities, so that the merely political sterility under the older bureaucracies was followed by total sterility under totalitarian rule. The age which saw the rise of the pan-movements, however, was still happily ignorant of total sterilization. On the contrary, to an innocent observer (as most Westerners were) the so-called Eastern soul appeared to be incomparably richer, its psychology more profound, its literature more meaningful than that of the ‘shallow’ Western democracies. This psychological and literary adventure into the ‘depths’ of suffering did not come to pass in Austria-Hungary because its literature was mainly German-language literature in general. Instead of inspiring profound humbug, Austrian bureaucracy rather caused its greatest modern writer to become the humorist and critic of the whole matter. Franz Kafka knew well enough the superstition of fate which possesses people who live under the perpetual rule of accidents, the inevitable tendency to read a special superhuman meaning into happenings whose rational significance is beyond the knowledge and understanding of the concerned. He was well aware of the weird attractiveness of such peoples, their melancholy and beautifully sad folk tales which seemed so superior to the lighter and brighter literature of more fortunate peoples. He exposed the pride in necessity as such, even the necessity of evil, and the nauseating conceit which identifies evil and misfortune with destiny. The miracle is only that he could do this in a world in which the main elements of this atmosphere were not fully articulated; he trusted his great powers of imagination to draw all the necessary conclusions and, as it were, to complete what reality had somehow neglected to bring into full focus (p 320)"
"Their equality is an equality of rights only, that is, an equality of human purpose; yet behind this equality of human purpose lies, according to Jewish-Christian tradition, another equality, expressed in the concept of one common origin beyond human history, human nature, and human purpose – the common origin in the mythical, unidentifiable Man who alone is God’s creation. This divine origin is the metaphysical concept on which the political equality of purpose may be based, the purpose of establishing mankind on earth. Nineteenth-century positivism and progressivism perverted this purpose of human equality when they set out to demonstrate what cannot be demonstrated, namely, that men are equal by nature and different only by history and circumstances, so that they can be equalized not by rights, but by circumstances and education. Nationalism and its concept of a ‘national mission’ perverted the national concept of mankind as a family of nations into a hierarchical structure where differences of history and organization were misinterpreted as differences between men, residing in natural origin. Racism, which denied the common origin of man and repudiated the common purpose of establishing humanity, introduced the concept of the divine origin of one people as contrasted with all others, thereby covering the temporary and changeable product of human endeavor with a pseudomystical cloud of divine eternity and finality. This finality is what acts as the common denominator between the pan-movements’ philosophy and race concepts, and explains their inherent affinity in theoretical terms. Politically, it is not important whether God or nature is thought to be the origin of a people; in both cases, no matter how exalted the claim for one’s own people, peoples are transformed into animal species so that a Russian appears as different from a German as a wolf is from a fox. A ‘divine people’ lives in a world in which it is the born persecutor of all other weaker species, or the born victim of all other stronger species. Only the rules of the animal kingdom can possibly apply to its political destinies. The tribalism of the pan-movements with its concept of the ‘divine origin’ of one people owed part of its great appeal to its contempt for liberal individualism,fn40 the ideal of mankind and the dignity of man. No human dignity is left if the individual owes his value only to the fact that he happens to be born a German or a Russian; but there is, in its stead, a new coherence, a sense of mutual reliability among all members of the people which indeed was very apt to assuage the rightful apprehensions of modern men as to what might happen to them if, isolated individuals in an atomized society, they were not protected by sheer numbers and enforced uniform coherence. Similarly, the ‘belt of mixed populations,’ more exposed than other sections of Europe to the storms of history and less rooted in Western tradition, felt earlier than other European peoples the terror of the ideal of humanity and of the Judaeo-Christian faith in the common origin of man. They did not harbor any illusions about the ‘noble savage,’ because they knew something of the potentialities of evil without research into the habits of cannibals. The more peoples know about one another, the less they want to recognize other peoples as their equals, the more they recoil from the ideal of humanity. The appeal of tribal isolation and master race ambitions was partly due to an instinctive feeling that mankind, whether a religious or humanistic ideal, implies a common sharing of responsibility. The shrinking of geographic distances made this a political actuality of the first order.fn42 It also made idealistic talk about mankind and the dignity of man an affair of the past simply because all these fine and dreamlike notions, with their time-honored traditions, suddenly assumed a terrifying timeliness. Even insistence on the sinfulness of all men, of course absent from the phraseology of the liberal protagonists of ‘mankind,’ by no means suffices for an understanding of the fact – which the people understood only too well – that the idea of humanity, purged of all sentimentality, has the very serious consequence that in one form or another men must assume responsibility for all crimes committed by men, and that eventually all nations will be forced to answer for the evil committed by all others. Tribalism and racism are the very realistic, if very destructive, ways of escaping this predicament of common responsibility. Their metaphysical rootlessness, which matched so well the territorial uprootedness of the nationalities it first seized, was equally well suited to the needs of the shifting masses of modern cities and was therefore grasped at once by totalitarianism; even the fanatical adoption by the Bolsheviks of the greatest antinational doctrine, Marxism, was counteracted and Pan-Slav propaganda reintroduced in Soviet Russia because of the tremendous isolating value of these theories in themselves." (P310)
(the bold is added above for empathises.
"The inadequacy of the Peace Treaties has often been explained by the fact that the peacemakers belonged to a generation formed by experiences in the pre-war era, so that they never quite realized the full impact of the war whose peace they had to conclude. There is no better proof of this than their attempt to regulate the nationality problem in Eastern and Southern Europe through the establishment of nation-states and the introduction of minority treaties. If the wisdom of the extension of a form of government which even in countries with old and settled national tradition could not handle the new problems of world politics had become questionable, it was even more doubtful whether it could be imported into an area which lacked the very conditions for the rise of nation-states: homogeneity of population and rootedness in the soil. But to assume that nation-states could be established by the methods of the Peace Treaties was simply preposterous. Indeed: ‘One glance at the demographic map of Europe should be sufficient to show that the nation-state principle cannot be introduced into Eastern Europe.’fn3 The Treaties lumped together many peoples in single states, called some of them ‘state people’ and entrusted them with the government, silently assumed that others (such as the Slovaks in Czechoslovakia, or the Croats and Slovenes in Yugoslavia) were equal partners in the government, which of course they were not,fn4 and with equal arbitrariness created out of the remnant a third group of nationalities called ‘minorities,’ thereby adding to the many burdens of the new states the trouble of observing special regulations for part of the population." (p352)
"No paradox of contemporary politics is filled with a more poignant irony than the discrepancy between the efforts of well-meaning idealists who stubbornly insist on regarding as ‘inalienable’ those human rights, which are enjoyed only by citizens of the most prosperous and civilized countries, and the situation of the rightless themselves. Their situation has deteriorated just as stubbornly, until the internment camp – prior to the second World War the exception rather than the rule for the stateless – has become the routine solution for the problem of domicile of the ‘displaced persons.’ Even the terminology applied to the stateless has deteriorated. The term ‘stateless’ at least acknowledged the fact that these persons had lost the protection of their government and required international agreements for safeguarding their legal status. The postwar term ‘displaced persons’ was invented during the war for the express purpose of liquidating statelessness once and for all by ignoring its existence. Nonrecognition of statelessness always means repatriation, i.e., deportation to a country of origin, which either refuses to recognize the prospective repatriate as a citizen, or, on the contrary, urgently wants him back for punishment. (P 365)"
"The greater the ratio of stateless and potentially stateless to the population at large – in prewar France it had reached 10 per cent of the total – the greater the danger of a gradual transformation into a police state. It goes without saying that the totalitarian regimes, where the police had risen to the peak of power, were especially eager to consolidate this power through the domination over vast groups of people, who, regardless of any offenses committed by individuals, found themselves anyway beyond the pale of the law."
"That the Nazis eventually met with so disgracefully little resistance from the police in the countries they occupied, and that they were able to organize terror as much as they did with the assistance of these local police forces, was due at least in part to the powerful position which the police had achieved over the years in their unrestricted and arbitrary domination of stateless and refugees."(p 377)
September 2, 2020
Our world is truly messed up.
Truly we are in a sad state, despite this pandemic. The amount of hatred, racism, and bullying is rampant and disgusting, and I am only talking of politics.
Then I read this book. Now I can say our world has been messed up for longer than I thought. This book was published in 1951. It is, without a doubt, one of the most powerful and sadly disturbing books I have read in a long time. This is not an easy book to read. Hannah Arendt lays out how totalitarian rule comes to power. It is a very thorough and well documented book.
It serves as a warning that we must not repeat the history of the Nazi concentration camps but in less than a decade she updated it again with the Communists in mind. She died in 1975 and would not know what happens, with Rwanda, the Balkans, Syria, etc. It never ends.
The roots of racism go way back and the tools of hate were applied in France, Spain, Britain, Russia; where ever imperialism, colonialism and power are used for their own gains. The mob rule, tribalism, disparaging displaced persons and minorities, using scape goats, twisting religion to “the chosen people” are all devises use and repeated throughout history. The Nazi machine was good at this. The Communists improved it.
Flash forward to the present. It’s history repeating itself.
One could speculate that where Arendt wrote this book as a warning for the future governments, it could also mean someone could use this book as a playbook for their own ruthless quest for power. Speculation?
Scary beyond belief.
A day after this review published, the German government says a Russian opposition leader was poisoned by a well-known toxin used by the Russians. One of the ways to maintain power is get rid of the opposition.
Finally, it was 75 years ago Sept 2, 1945 that World War II ended. Plus ça change, plus ça meme chose!
Truly we are in a sad state, despite this pandemic. The amount of hatred, racism, and bullying is rampant and disgusting, and I am only talking of politics.
Then I read this book. Now I can say our world has been messed up for longer than I thought. This book was published in 1951. It is, without a doubt, one of the most powerful and sadly disturbing books I have read in a long time. This is not an easy book to read. Hannah Arendt lays out how totalitarian rule comes to power. It is a very thorough and well documented book.
It serves as a warning that we must not repeat the history of the Nazi concentration camps but in less than a decade she updated it again with the Communists in mind. She died in 1975 and would not know what happens, with Rwanda, the Balkans, Syria, etc. It never ends.
The roots of racism go way back and the tools of hate were applied in France, Spain, Britain, Russia; where ever imperialism, colonialism and power are used for their own gains. The mob rule, tribalism, disparaging displaced persons and minorities, using scape goats, twisting religion to “the chosen people” are all devises use and repeated throughout history. The Nazi machine was good at this. The Communists improved it.
Flash forward to the present. It’s history repeating itself.
One could speculate that where Arendt wrote this book as a warning for the future governments, it could also mean someone could use this book as a playbook for their own ruthless quest for power. Speculation?
Scary beyond belief.
A day after this review published, the German government says a Russian opposition leader was poisoned by a well-known toxin used by the Russians. One of the ways to maintain power is get rid of the opposition.
Finally, it was 75 years ago Sept 2, 1945 that World War II ended. Plus ça change, plus ça meme chose!
January 29, 2022
every page is filled with brilliant analysis ... written in 1960, Arendt's thinking is just as relevant today, as Donald Trump and his Republican toadies seek to imitate the totalitarian practices of Hitler and Stalin ... a few excerpts from Arendt:
"Neither National Socialism nor Bolshevism has ever proclaimed a new form of government or asserted that its goals were reached with the seizure of power and the control of the state machinery."
"the possibility that gigantic lies and monstrous falsehoods can eventually be established as unquestioned facts, that man may be free to change his own past at will, and that the difference between truth and falsehood may cease to be objective and become a mere matter of power and cleverness, of pressure and infinite repetition. Not Stalin’s and Hitler’s skill in the art of lying but the fact that they were able to organize the masses into a collective unit to back up their lies with impressive magnificence, exerted the fascination."
"The force possessed by totalitarian propaganda lies in its ability to shut the masses off from the real world."
LEW ... how like Trump and a Republican Party that pushes obvious lies and did not even bother with a platform for the 2020 election
"Neither National Socialism nor Bolshevism has ever proclaimed a new form of government or asserted that its goals were reached with the seizure of power and the control of the state machinery."
"the possibility that gigantic lies and monstrous falsehoods can eventually be established as unquestioned facts, that man may be free to change his own past at will, and that the difference between truth and falsehood may cease to be objective and become a mere matter of power and cleverness, of pressure and infinite repetition. Not Stalin’s and Hitler’s skill in the art of lying but the fact that they were able to organize the masses into a collective unit to back up their lies with impressive magnificence, exerted the fascination."
"The force possessed by totalitarian propaganda lies in its ability to shut the masses off from the real world."
LEW ... how like Trump and a Republican Party that pushes obvious lies and did not even bother with a platform for the 2020 election
November 4, 2017
What does it take to create a Hitler or a Stalin? More importantly can it happen in the USA as it has in Putin’s Russia? Arendt is a very intelligent writer. She’s not afraid to assume her readers really want to know and never talks down to the reader. The book was reprinted in the 1960s but mostly reflects her thoughts from 1950. There’s just something about a writer who assumes her readers have read Hobbes’ ‘Leviathan’, Kant, Jeremy Bentham and Utilitarian philosophy, and often quotes from Edmund Burke, and all the while assumes the reader understands the context and the connections of what is being discussed.
In order to create a totalitarian system the first thing required is to create hate of the other of some kind. She documents the madness of 19th century Europe (and South Africa) and its peculiar blaming of the Jews and the stateless for its ills, the Dreyfus Affair in all of its details and the chaos after the First World War and then the book starts to get into its groove as she starts to consider the special characteristics inherent within Hitler and Stalin the two totalitarians under consideration which resulted from that madness, the first race inspired, the second class inspired.
The common ingredients necessary for totalitarianism to take hold were along these lines, create a fear stemming from a difference and use the threat of terror to appeal to baser instincts of the mobs (winning the hearts of at least 48% of the people is just enough to win in an Electoral College, for example). A Hitler quote from the book went something along these lines ‘everything I am I owe to you the people of Germany, and who you are is owed to me’. It would be similar as if somebody said ‘only I can fix the problems that you have and nobody else knows how to do that except for me’.
To create totalitarianism, undermine science and knowledge by appealing to dogma instead of reason and create fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) by challenging all narratives contrary to the leader’s whim for that day and act as if they were coming from a fake media or pointing out there are alternative facts. Consistency and coherence are not necessary within their narratives for them to be successful only what the leader has recently said matters, because after you insult your opponent by calling them names (such as ‘Pocahontas’) the mob will cheer you on in order to see blood as if they were sharks swimming in the water between feedings.
Keeping people afraid and hateful from any group or person who threatens them in their fevered imaginations and who are not part of their self selected group defined by their ethos. It doesn’t matter if they are to be made afraid of Muslims, Mexicans or immigrants. The most important consideration is that the masses must be irrational in their fear, but have the feeling that something wicked this way comes and only one person can save them from that future (but unknown) travesty.
The author will say that totalitarian merges the law into the ethos of the people manipulated by the leader such that to disagree with the law and the hate that proceeds from the created ethos would be tantamount to being anti-patriotic and not part of the spirit of the country as such nor would they be deemed worthy of protection by the rule of justice. The leader, for example, could lead a chant of ‘lock her up’ before any indictment has been made and recommend a death penalty before a trial especially in acts of terror when committed by the bogeyman group of the day in order to instill fear induced by terror of the unknown to come, because fear of terror can never be relaxed since the totalitarian has convinced the mob only he knows how to fix the problem which he has created to be an existential threat within the minds of the mob and the leader but not in reality.
I would say, in addition for totalitarianism to win out the people must first stop learning. They must allow their leaders to think for them, and no matter how absurd the assertion is and void of science for totalitarianism to take hold the people must be willing to accept statements such as ‘Climate Change is a Chinese Hoax’ or ‘vaccines cause autism’ as truth because their leaders, and their insular news sources trapped within an epistemic closure tell them such. (Can’t they just read ‘Scientific American’?).
Rush Limbaugh routinely tells his listeners that they do not need to read the ‘fake news’ and they can count on him instead. It’s a free country and any one can pick who they want to listen to or what they believe, but I sincerely suggest they be willing to learn from other sources then what their leaders have sanctify with their imprimaturs.
Every time I hear a 9/11 truther, or a climate denier, or a vaccine denier, or somebody who ignores the Mueller investigation about Russian influence within American politics because Hillary did something ‘nasty’ and is the real criminal which only makes sense in their fevered imaginations I cringe, because I know they are part of the totalitarian vanguard. Russia is not our friend and they are a threat to democracy. Education and science are the best defense against ignorance based fear and as Kant said, ‘the problem with the ignorant is they do not know they are ignorant’ at least the ignorant can learn. The stupid will always remain stupid.
Arendt had an interesting take on the ‘autonomy of chess’. Within a group of people there will be some people who like something for its own sake such as the game of chess just for the sake of chess itself (St. Aquinas makes only God (i.e., the ultimate Good) and the conscience of the individual as causes of themselves). Himmler, when he came to power was not going to allow that. He was not going to allow a farmer to be a farmer just for the sake of farming. He was going to insist that everything had to serve the nation in the end since the nation itself with its totalitarian leader was to serve as the ultimate good for all within the nation. All of his SS guards were never to be SS agents just for their own sake. The good of the nation meant the good of the leader and that was what mattered most in that symbiotic relationship. The capitalist and expansionist highlighted in the first part of the book similarly, the author will say, just wanted to make money or expand for its own sake, its own cause. Leaders of totalitarian states are not necessarily ideologically driven, but often want authoritarian power for its own sake and are using the people only as useful idiots in order to enhance what they think of as their ultimate good.
It is vital that we study history. Otherwise we can be doomed to repeat it. This book gives a recursive view of history since it is a look back at a history as seen by a very intelligent writer in 1950 about a history that immediately came before that time period, and the reader gets both a history of the time period and a snapshot of what was believed in 1950. We’ve learned a whole lot more about Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia since this book was first published, but in spite of what we know today that she didn’t know then this book made for an intelligent telling of an interesting period of time. Our understanding of history takes many drafts with rewrites before we think we get it right or at least good enough to think we did, and this book represented one of the best of the early drafts.
In order to create a totalitarian system the first thing required is to create hate of the other of some kind. She documents the madness of 19th century Europe (and South Africa) and its peculiar blaming of the Jews and the stateless for its ills, the Dreyfus Affair in all of its details and the chaos after the First World War and then the book starts to get into its groove as she starts to consider the special characteristics inherent within Hitler and Stalin the two totalitarians under consideration which resulted from that madness, the first race inspired, the second class inspired.
The common ingredients necessary for totalitarianism to take hold were along these lines, create a fear stemming from a difference and use the threat of terror to appeal to baser instincts of the mobs (winning the hearts of at least 48% of the people is just enough to win in an Electoral College, for example). A Hitler quote from the book went something along these lines ‘everything I am I owe to you the people of Germany, and who you are is owed to me’. It would be similar as if somebody said ‘only I can fix the problems that you have and nobody else knows how to do that except for me’.
To create totalitarianism, undermine science and knowledge by appealing to dogma instead of reason and create fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) by challenging all narratives contrary to the leader’s whim for that day and act as if they were coming from a fake media or pointing out there are alternative facts. Consistency and coherence are not necessary within their narratives for them to be successful only what the leader has recently said matters, because after you insult your opponent by calling them names (such as ‘Pocahontas’) the mob will cheer you on in order to see blood as if they were sharks swimming in the water between feedings.
Keeping people afraid and hateful from any group or person who threatens them in their fevered imaginations and who are not part of their self selected group defined by their ethos. It doesn’t matter if they are to be made afraid of Muslims, Mexicans or immigrants. The most important consideration is that the masses must be irrational in their fear, but have the feeling that something wicked this way comes and only one person can save them from that future (but unknown) travesty.
The author will say that totalitarian merges the law into the ethos of the people manipulated by the leader such that to disagree with the law and the hate that proceeds from the created ethos would be tantamount to being anti-patriotic and not part of the spirit of the country as such nor would they be deemed worthy of protection by the rule of justice. The leader, for example, could lead a chant of ‘lock her up’ before any indictment has been made and recommend a death penalty before a trial especially in acts of terror when committed by the bogeyman group of the day in order to instill fear induced by terror of the unknown to come, because fear of terror can never be relaxed since the totalitarian has convinced the mob only he knows how to fix the problem which he has created to be an existential threat within the minds of the mob and the leader but not in reality.
I would say, in addition for totalitarianism to win out the people must first stop learning. They must allow their leaders to think for them, and no matter how absurd the assertion is and void of science for totalitarianism to take hold the people must be willing to accept statements such as ‘Climate Change is a Chinese Hoax’ or ‘vaccines cause autism’ as truth because their leaders, and their insular news sources trapped within an epistemic closure tell them such. (Can’t they just read ‘Scientific American’?).
Rush Limbaugh routinely tells his listeners that they do not need to read the ‘fake news’ and they can count on him instead. It’s a free country and any one can pick who they want to listen to or what they believe, but I sincerely suggest they be willing to learn from other sources then what their leaders have sanctify with their imprimaturs.
Every time I hear a 9/11 truther, or a climate denier, or a vaccine denier, or somebody who ignores the Mueller investigation about Russian influence within American politics because Hillary did something ‘nasty’ and is the real criminal which only makes sense in their fevered imaginations I cringe, because I know they are part of the totalitarian vanguard. Russia is not our friend and they are a threat to democracy. Education and science are the best defense against ignorance based fear and as Kant said, ‘the problem with the ignorant is they do not know they are ignorant’ at least the ignorant can learn. The stupid will always remain stupid.
Arendt had an interesting take on the ‘autonomy of chess’. Within a group of people there will be some people who like something for its own sake such as the game of chess just for the sake of chess itself (St. Aquinas makes only God (i.e., the ultimate Good) and the conscience of the individual as causes of themselves). Himmler, when he came to power was not going to allow that. He was not going to allow a farmer to be a farmer just for the sake of farming. He was going to insist that everything had to serve the nation in the end since the nation itself with its totalitarian leader was to serve as the ultimate good for all within the nation. All of his SS guards were never to be SS agents just for their own sake. The good of the nation meant the good of the leader and that was what mattered most in that symbiotic relationship. The capitalist and expansionist highlighted in the first part of the book similarly, the author will say, just wanted to make money or expand for its own sake, its own cause. Leaders of totalitarian states are not necessarily ideologically driven, but often want authoritarian power for its own sake and are using the people only as useful idiots in order to enhance what they think of as their ultimate good.
It is vital that we study history. Otherwise we can be doomed to repeat it. This book gives a recursive view of history since it is a look back at a history as seen by a very intelligent writer in 1950 about a history that immediately came before that time period, and the reader gets both a history of the time period and a snapshot of what was believed in 1950. We’ve learned a whole lot more about Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia since this book was first published, but in spite of what we know today that she didn’t know then this book made for an intelligent telling of an interesting period of time. Our understanding of history takes many drafts with rewrites before we think we get it right or at least good enough to think we did, and this book represented one of the best of the early drafts.
October 30, 2020
Preface to the First Edition
Preface to Part One: Antisemitism
Preface to Part Two: Imperialism
Preface to Part Three: Totalitarianism
--The Origins of Totalitarianism
Bibliography
Index
Preface to Part One: Antisemitism
Preface to Part Two: Imperialism
Preface to Part Three: Totalitarianism
--The Origins of Totalitarianism
Bibliography
Index
Read
March 4, 2021[ 4- Marzo-2021. Mi è capitato di rileggerlo. Lo scrissi un anno e mezzo fa: un'altra era? Per noi occidentali sicuramente: l'epidemia era una parola mitica ferma alla Spagnola di cent'anni fa. E invece...all'aiutiamoli a casa loro col sottotesto che" muoiano pure in mare o nei campi libici" si aggiunge, in epoca di pandemia, "si lascino pure indietro le vite sacrificabili" in nome del dio denaro che viene chiamato "crescita" e dipendente dai consumi indotti e spacciati per esiziali. E il commento sotto può adattarsi anche a quello che stiamo affrontando e che si aggiunge alle migrazioni suicide che continuano seppure in sordina].
Non è un commento al celebre libro della Arendt. E' un mio commento "civile" a ciò che si manifesta ogni giorno sotto i nostri occhi affetti da "Cecità". Questo "ciò", che passa alla velocità della luce, non sarebbe sfuggito alla filosofa come segno di quel qualcosa di grave che prima o poi accadrà.
Facciamo anche noi la nostra parte. Non siano i libri il rifugio di chi si è arreso all'imponderabile che accade solo se lo vogliamo.
Ieri sera a “In Onda”, l’ex ministro Calenda ed ora esternatore a tempo pieno si è “ombrato” ( leggi “scagliato contro” con la moderazione e pacatezza proprie della classe alto borghese che il P.D. rappresenta) con il titolo di copertina di Famiglia Cristiana “Vade Retro Salvini”.
Non si può rispondere con un giudizio morale, diceva, quando si tratta di affrontare e risolvere un problema epocale come la immigrazione incontrollata. Si devono mettere in campo azioni e procedure asettiche e allo stesso tempo efficaci: “di Salvini penso politicamente tutto il male possibile” ma non è né il diavolo nè un fascista” ( cito a memoria, nonostante il virgolettato, ma metto la mia mano destra sul fuoco che il senso era questo).
In quest’ottica linguistica di negazione e disprezzo del giudizio morale, noto che pronunciare “male” è come utilizzare l’arma del nemico: il male è pertinenza della morale.
Certo la parola “morale”, visto l’uso prettamente ginecologico che ne fece la chiesa dei bei tempi andati, fa arricciare le carni e serve oggi come alibi “all’immoralità contro l’umanità” spacciata per pragmatismo e politica dei flussi.
E’ stata ipocrita la sostituzione della parola “morale” con quella di “etica”, ammantata di laicità che, nel significato antico, non ha ma di cui, i non credenti e i “sedicenti laici”, si sono serviti fino a ignorare la potenza connotativa che la parola “morale” ha nella consuetudine e pertanto esorcizzandone il sottotesto: la colpa individuale.
Se qualcuno – e ce ne sono – si prendesse la briga di leggere il tomone “Le origini del totalitarismo” di H. Arendt, noterebbe come la filosofa non riesca a dare una spiegazione socio politica ( accuratissima sulle cause lontane e vicine all’origine del nazismo e il fascismo) al fenomeno dei ampi e delle sue orribili conseguenze se non arrivando alla scomparsa “della morale dentro di te e il cielo stellato sopra di te”. E per il resto della vita, lei atea ebrea, fu sul problema morale che battè sempre il tasto per spiegare i crimini contro l’umanità.
Che spiegazione oltre la immoralità c’è nel trasformare in tante “Zattere della medusa” le navi ong ,lasciandole galleggiare nella canicola mediterranea in cerca di un porto o nell’abbandonare a morire su gommoni sgonfi donne a bambini perché recalcitranti a ritornare nell’inferno libico?
Quale pacata spiegazione sociologica puoi dare di questo “problema”?
E ben vengano le denuncie dei retrivi, obsoleti giornalisti di un giornaletto provinciale che non si vende più nemmeno davanti alle chiese.
E’ assolutamente necessario che qualcuno distolga l’attenzione delle masse incolte e straccione ( così le hanno ridotte chi ora dice “prima gli italiani) che inseguono il detto tipo nelle sue schifose farneticazioni. Che prendano così coscienza della loro umanità perduta e riconquistino la dignità di persone da cui potranno risalire alla contezza dei loro stessi diritti e doveri, di cui hanno perso traccia.
Non è un commento al celebre libro della Arendt. E' un mio commento "civile" a ciò che si manifesta ogni giorno sotto i nostri occhi affetti da "Cecità". Questo "ciò", che passa alla velocità della luce, non sarebbe sfuggito alla filosofa come segno di quel qualcosa di grave che prima o poi accadrà.
Facciamo anche noi la nostra parte. Non siano i libri il rifugio di chi si è arreso all'imponderabile che accade solo se lo vogliamo.
Ieri sera a “In Onda”, l’ex ministro Calenda ed ora esternatore a tempo pieno si è “ombrato” ( leggi “scagliato contro” con la moderazione e pacatezza proprie della classe alto borghese che il P.D. rappresenta) con il titolo di copertina di Famiglia Cristiana “Vade Retro Salvini”.
Non si può rispondere con un giudizio morale, diceva, quando si tratta di affrontare e risolvere un problema epocale come la immigrazione incontrollata. Si devono mettere in campo azioni e procedure asettiche e allo stesso tempo efficaci: “di Salvini penso politicamente tutto il male possibile” ma non è né il diavolo nè un fascista” ( cito a memoria, nonostante il virgolettato, ma metto la mia mano destra sul fuoco che il senso era questo).
In quest’ottica linguistica di negazione e disprezzo del giudizio morale, noto che pronunciare “male” è come utilizzare l’arma del nemico: il male è pertinenza della morale.
Certo la parola “morale”, visto l’uso prettamente ginecologico che ne fece la chiesa dei bei tempi andati, fa arricciare le carni e serve oggi come alibi “all’immoralità contro l’umanità” spacciata per pragmatismo e politica dei flussi.
E’ stata ipocrita la sostituzione della parola “morale” con quella di “etica”, ammantata di laicità che, nel significato antico, non ha ma di cui, i non credenti e i “sedicenti laici”, si sono serviti fino a ignorare la potenza connotativa che la parola “morale” ha nella consuetudine e pertanto esorcizzandone il sottotesto: la colpa individuale.
Se qualcuno – e ce ne sono – si prendesse la briga di leggere il tomone “Le origini del totalitarismo” di H. Arendt, noterebbe come la filosofa non riesca a dare una spiegazione socio politica ( accuratissima sulle cause lontane e vicine all’origine del nazismo e il fascismo) al fenomeno dei ampi e delle sue orribili conseguenze se non arrivando alla scomparsa “della morale dentro di te e il cielo stellato sopra di te”. E per il resto della vita, lei atea ebrea, fu sul problema morale che battè sempre il tasto per spiegare i crimini contro l’umanità.
Che spiegazione oltre la immoralità c’è nel trasformare in tante “Zattere della medusa” le navi ong ,lasciandole galleggiare nella canicola mediterranea in cerca di un porto o nell’abbandonare a morire su gommoni sgonfi donne a bambini perché recalcitranti a ritornare nell’inferno libico?
Quale pacata spiegazione sociologica puoi dare di questo “problema”?
E ben vengano le denuncie dei retrivi, obsoleti giornalisti di un giornaletto provinciale che non si vende più nemmeno davanti alle chiese.
E’ assolutamente necessario che qualcuno distolga l’attenzione delle masse incolte e straccione ( così le hanno ridotte chi ora dice “prima gli italiani) che inseguono il detto tipo nelle sue schifose farneticazioni. Che prendano così coscienza della loro umanità perduta e riconquistino la dignità di persone da cui potranno risalire alla contezza dei loro stessi diritti e doveri, di cui hanno perso traccia.
January 21, 2024
I will not dare to undertake summarizing the entirety of this work, which contains three works in their own right: Anti-Semitism, Imperialism and Totalitarianism. That would be impossible. However, it must be said that this work is undoubtedly a major monument of twentieth century thought, the century of course where these three “isms” have reached dramatic heights in their influence and their monstrosities.
Instead, I will simply share some reflections that I have noted and made while patiently travelling through the immense scope of this masterly work.
Firstly France and its destiny .
France ceased to be a great nation in 1918. The French Revolution, and the ideas of freedom it carried, lasted from 1789 to 1918. The Dreyfus affair was the moment when the faith in the equality of citizens in front of the law started to falter and, with it, the faith in the Republic which was the symbol of this equality (the Egalité of Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité). At this key moment in French history two clans, which had already existed since at least the Revolution, consolidated themselves around the Affair: on one side the defenders of the Republic who became the Dreyfusards and on the other side the defenders of the aristocracy and the clergy who became the anti- Dreyfusards, the latter were anti-Republican, anti-democratic and anti-Semitic. All the great military names who later made the shameful history of France in 1914-1918 (Foch, Pétain, Lyautey, Fayolle and Joffre) were products of this clerical and anti-republican anti-Dreyfusism.
As a result, the legal twists and turns of the Dreyfus affair took on a major historic dimension, with serious consequences, going far beyond the failure of the French judicial system. It was the manifestation, the “coming out” should I say, of the deeply rooted antisemitism which had been there through the whole history of France since the Middle Ages but had always been hidden and had never so publicly shown its ugly face.
Secondly American imperialism .
According to Hannah Arendt, what distinguishes American imperialism from the imperialism of the old European nations, which were resulting from colonialism, is that the latter was driven by the need for expansion of the mother nations whose metropolitan resources were no longer sufficient for the benefit of the nation itself. English imperialism, for example, was based on the need for mercantile control, a control of profit.
The American imperialism as we still know it today (or at least in 1967 when Arendt wrote her preface to Imperialism as things are visibly starting to change in the 21st century) is based, beyond the control of profit, on the need for political control. And in fact, the United States are almost the only nation that can financially afford to ensure this political control at a loss. Its budgetary interventions around the World are not profitable because they generate debts that the developing beneficiary countries contract and cannot, and never will, pay. But only these debts, thus making these countries obligated, represent a key asset for America to global political, geo-political domination.
Thirdly the transformation of society .
Reading Arendt's work, which by coincidence I was doing almost simultaneously with that of Julien Benda La Trahison des Clercs, led me to glimpse a concept based around the subtle but complete transformation of European society since the great revolutions, a transformation from an eternal or universal basis to an individual basis. Arendt also expands a lot on this in La Condition De L'Homme Moderne (French Edition) by Hannah Arendt.
Since the 18th century, humanity may have reached its maturity. Nature has been thoroughly explored in a rational manner and the ancient myths and superstitions that formed the basis, limits and, in some ways, the stability of the old society have been irreparably destroyed. Consequently, Man has discovered that everything is possible because he is the only master of his rights, his destiny and, with regard to totalitarian regimes, of the horror and murders that he can inflict on his own species.
The stability provided by the divine myths and superstition which preceded this modern age of reason gave a limit to the possible, or to how far could Man dare go. The wrath of God somewhat tampered most leader’s tyrannical aspirations. Man has now discovered that this limit was artificial. This is what the era of anti-Semitism, imperialism and their descendance: totalitarianism, have made us realise since the mid-19th century.
As a result of his discovery, that he is the sole master of his destiny, Man created the concentration camps. He also created the atomic bomb and therefore the means to be master of its destiny and its power to the point of its own total and instantaneous destruction. No fear of the divine or the absolute can any longer put a brake on his actions.
He has also discovered, more recently, that part of his total control means that he is also master of his environment over which he has the power of life or death. The one and only thing that he does not yet control is this power itself and nothing suggests that he will be able to stop this inexorable race towards its total self-destruction.
Because our survival is now a desperate race against the clock which is a race between on one side the erosion in all areas leading to the slow (or maybe not so slow) extinction of humanity and its hosting planet and on the other side the regaining by humanity of a positive and constructive control of its own destiny. This can and must only be done by Man itself, no Gods or divine creatures of any kind are there anymore for Man to off-load its burden. Only the human race can put an end to this self-destruction. A promethean effort for us Sisyphus of our modern times.
Instead, I will simply share some reflections that I have noted and made while patiently travelling through the immense scope of this masterly work.
Firstly France and its destiny .
France ceased to be a great nation in 1918. The French Revolution, and the ideas of freedom it carried, lasted from 1789 to 1918. The Dreyfus affair was the moment when the faith in the equality of citizens in front of the law started to falter and, with it, the faith in the Republic which was the symbol of this equality (the Egalité of Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité). At this key moment in French history two clans, which had already existed since at least the Revolution, consolidated themselves around the Affair: on one side the defenders of the Republic who became the Dreyfusards and on the other side the defenders of the aristocracy and the clergy who became the anti- Dreyfusards, the latter were anti-Republican, anti-democratic and anti-Semitic. All the great military names who later made the shameful history of France in 1914-1918 (Foch, Pétain, Lyautey, Fayolle and Joffre) were products of this clerical and anti-republican anti-Dreyfusism.
As a result, the legal twists and turns of the Dreyfus affair took on a major historic dimension, with serious consequences, going far beyond the failure of the French judicial system. It was the manifestation, the “coming out” should I say, of the deeply rooted antisemitism which had been there through the whole history of France since the Middle Ages but had always been hidden and had never so publicly shown its ugly face.
Secondly American imperialism .
According to Hannah Arendt, what distinguishes American imperialism from the imperialism of the old European nations, which were resulting from colonialism, is that the latter was driven by the need for expansion of the mother nations whose metropolitan resources were no longer sufficient for the benefit of the nation itself. English imperialism, for example, was based on the need for mercantile control, a control of profit.
The American imperialism as we still know it today (or at least in 1967 when Arendt wrote her preface to Imperialism as things are visibly starting to change in the 21st century) is based, beyond the control of profit, on the need for political control. And in fact, the United States are almost the only nation that can financially afford to ensure this political control at a loss. Its budgetary interventions around the World are not profitable because they generate debts that the developing beneficiary countries contract and cannot, and never will, pay. But only these debts, thus making these countries obligated, represent a key asset for America to global political, geo-political domination.
Thirdly the transformation of society .
Reading Arendt's work, which by coincidence I was doing almost simultaneously with that of Julien Benda La Trahison des Clercs, led me to glimpse a concept based around the subtle but complete transformation of European society since the great revolutions, a transformation from an eternal or universal basis to an individual basis. Arendt also expands a lot on this in La Condition De L'Homme Moderne (French Edition) by Hannah Arendt.
Since the 18th century, humanity may have reached its maturity. Nature has been thoroughly explored in a rational manner and the ancient myths and superstitions that formed the basis, limits and, in some ways, the stability of the old society have been irreparably destroyed. Consequently, Man has discovered that everything is possible because he is the only master of his rights, his destiny and, with regard to totalitarian regimes, of the horror and murders that he can inflict on his own species.
The stability provided by the divine myths and superstition which preceded this modern age of reason gave a limit to the possible, or to how far could Man dare go. The wrath of God somewhat tampered most leader’s tyrannical aspirations. Man has now discovered that this limit was artificial. This is what the era of anti-Semitism, imperialism and their descendance: totalitarianism, have made us realise since the mid-19th century.
As a result of his discovery, that he is the sole master of his destiny, Man created the concentration camps. He also created the atomic bomb and therefore the means to be master of its destiny and its power to the point of its own total and instantaneous destruction. No fear of the divine or the absolute can any longer put a brake on his actions.
He has also discovered, more recently, that part of his total control means that he is also master of his environment over which he has the power of life or death. The one and only thing that he does not yet control is this power itself and nothing suggests that he will be able to stop this inexorable race towards its total self-destruction.
Because our survival is now a desperate race against the clock which is a race between on one side the erosion in all areas leading to the slow (or maybe not so slow) extinction of humanity and its hosting planet and on the other side the regaining by humanity of a positive and constructive control of its own destiny. This can and must only be done by Man itself, no Gods or divine creatures of any kind are there anymore for Man to off-load its burden. Only the human race can put an end to this self-destruction. A promethean effort for us Sisyphus of our modern times.
June 10, 2023
https://kansasbooks.blogspot.com/2023...
“El totalitarismo en el poder sustituye invariablemente a todos los talentos de primera fila, sean cuales fueren sus simpatias, por aquellos fanáticos y chiflados cuya falta de inteligencia y de creatividad sigue siendo la mejor garantía de su lealtad.”
No es mi intención en este intento de reseña explicar sobre qué va esta obra sobradamente conocida de Hannah Arendt, una obra densa y extensa que sin embargo, me ha merecido mucho la pena y que me ha hecho situarme en temas que conocía solo superficialmente, pero intentaré hacer un sencillo resumen sobre algunos detalles. Los origenes del totalitarismo es una obra de 1951 y aunque ha llovido mucho desde entonces, en la época en la que Arendt concibió esta obra, el nacionalsocialismo y el bolchevismo fueron los dos movimientos totalitarios de principios del s.XX, dos movimientos que han dejado una marca imborrable en la historia de la humanidad. No es una lectura espesa pero sí densa sobre todo en la primera sección en la que explica los orígenes del antisemitismo, aunque también hay que decir que Hannah Arendt es una autora a la que se entiende fácilmente, en el sentido en que construye frases no relativamente largas y agrupadas en torno a párrafos organizados por ideas concretas.
"El poder total solo puede ser logrado y salvaguardado en un mundo de reflejos condicionados, de marionetas sin el más ligero rasgo de espontaneidad."
Hannah Arendt, antes de detenerse concretamente en el movimiento totalitario, aborda dos secciones que para ella son fundamentales para llegar al origen del movimiento totalitario: el antisemitismo donde analiza el papel histórico de los judios durante la historia europea y el imperialismo, y para ello la autora cita continuamente fuentes literarias como ejemplos más cercanos.
- La Primera parte Antisemitismo ha sido quizás la parte que más me ha costado porque no estaba familiarizada con este tema, aunque cuando cita ciertas fuentes literarias, Proust o Céline (al que acabo de leer, un antisemita de tomo y lomo, también hay que decirlo), por ejemplo, ayuda a que esta sección se haga más accesible. En esta sección Hannah Arendt se detiene en la razón por la cual el antisemitismo ocupó un papel tan importante en la era nazi y aborda el pasado histórico europeo en el que los judíos desempeñaron un papel fundamental como financieros de monarquias y Estados, nunca del todo integrados en el Estado-nación ni en ningún movimiento politico. Resulta paradójico que aunque Hannah Arendt está de parte del pueblo judio también hay momentos en que se nota que mantiene una distancia incluso culpándolos en muchos momentos. Es una sección interesante por lo que supone de novedad en temas que no conocía.
"El terror, como hoy lo conocemos, ataca sin provocación previa, y sus víctimas son inocentes incluso desde el punto de vista del perseguidor."
- En la segunda sección, Imperialismo, Hannah Arendt aborda la expansión imperial de finales del siglo XIX y la llegada de la Primera Guerra Mundial. Aqui también se apoya en fuentes literarias, en este caso toma la figura de Rudyard Kipling. Lo interesante de esta sección esté quizás en el hecho de que el imperialismo es un fenómeno nuevo porque por primera vez la clase burguesa asume el dominio político y se obsesiona con la expansión por la expansión llevándola hasta sus últimas consecuencias. Esta nueva formación política dio lugar al racismo y la burocracia por primera vez como ideologías principales de la sociedad moderna, que será una de las bases del futuro movimiento totalitario.
"La dominación total que aspira a organizar la infinita pluralidad y la diferenciación de los seres humanos como si la Humanidad fuese justamente un individuo, solo es posible si todas y cada una de las personas pudieran ser reducidas a una identidad nunca cambiante de reacciones.
El problema es fabricar algo que no existe , es decir, un tipo de especie humana que se parezca a otras especies animales, cuya única libertad consistiría en preservar la especie."
- Ya en la tercera sección, Totalitarismo, la más corta, Hannah Arendt analiza este totalitarismo con la base de las dos secciones anteriores. La idea central está en la anulación del individuo y su espontaneidad para convertirlos en simples mecanismos que formen parte de un todo, la masa anulada. Algunos temas que aborda Hannah Arendt en esta sección no han perdido ni un ápice de actualidad, como puede ser el tema de los refugiados, e incluso y esto es una reflexión muy personal, leyendo esta sección me han venido muchos momentos vividos durante esta última pandemía y la misma Hannah Arendt lo advierte casi al final de esta obra:
"Las soluciones totalitarias pueden muy bien sobrevivir a la caída de los regímenes totalitarios bajo la forma de fuertes tentaciones, que surgirán allí donde parezca imposible aliviar la miseria política, social o económica en una forma valiosa para el hombre.”
En definitiva, una obra necesaria incluso para analizar los tiempos que vivimos y asi poder detectar ciertas pautas que se siguen produciendo escandalosamente: el control cada vez más obsesivo, la vigilancia continua, los movimientos de refugiados, la propaganda camuflada en forma de medios de comunicación, y así, podría continuar con muchos temas más que aborda Hannah Arendt y que siguen de actualidad.
"El poder auténtico comienza donde empieza el secreto."
“El totalitarismo en el poder sustituye invariablemente a todos los talentos de primera fila, sean cuales fueren sus simpatias, por aquellos fanáticos y chiflados cuya falta de inteligencia y de creatividad sigue siendo la mejor garantía de su lealtad.”
No es mi intención en este intento de reseña explicar sobre qué va esta obra sobradamente conocida de Hannah Arendt, una obra densa y extensa que sin embargo, me ha merecido mucho la pena y que me ha hecho situarme en temas que conocía solo superficialmente, pero intentaré hacer un sencillo resumen sobre algunos detalles. Los origenes del totalitarismo es una obra de 1951 y aunque ha llovido mucho desde entonces, en la época en la que Arendt concibió esta obra, el nacionalsocialismo y el bolchevismo fueron los dos movimientos totalitarios de principios del s.XX, dos movimientos que han dejado una marca imborrable en la historia de la humanidad. No es una lectura espesa pero sí densa sobre todo en la primera sección en la que explica los orígenes del antisemitismo, aunque también hay que decir que Hannah Arendt es una autora a la que se entiende fácilmente, en el sentido en que construye frases no relativamente largas y agrupadas en torno a párrafos organizados por ideas concretas.
"El poder total solo puede ser logrado y salvaguardado en un mundo de reflejos condicionados, de marionetas sin el más ligero rasgo de espontaneidad."
Hannah Arendt, antes de detenerse concretamente en el movimiento totalitario, aborda dos secciones que para ella son fundamentales para llegar al origen del movimiento totalitario: el antisemitismo donde analiza el papel histórico de los judios durante la historia europea y el imperialismo, y para ello la autora cita continuamente fuentes literarias como ejemplos más cercanos.
- La Primera parte Antisemitismo ha sido quizás la parte que más me ha costado porque no estaba familiarizada con este tema, aunque cuando cita ciertas fuentes literarias, Proust o Céline (al que acabo de leer, un antisemita de tomo y lomo, también hay que decirlo), por ejemplo, ayuda a que esta sección se haga más accesible. En esta sección Hannah Arendt se detiene en la razón por la cual el antisemitismo ocupó un papel tan importante en la era nazi y aborda el pasado histórico europeo en el que los judíos desempeñaron un papel fundamental como financieros de monarquias y Estados, nunca del todo integrados en el Estado-nación ni en ningún movimiento politico. Resulta paradójico que aunque Hannah Arendt está de parte del pueblo judio también hay momentos en que se nota que mantiene una distancia incluso culpándolos en muchos momentos. Es una sección interesante por lo que supone de novedad en temas que no conocía.
"El terror, como hoy lo conocemos, ataca sin provocación previa, y sus víctimas son inocentes incluso desde el punto de vista del perseguidor."
- En la segunda sección, Imperialismo, Hannah Arendt aborda la expansión imperial de finales del siglo XIX y la llegada de la Primera Guerra Mundial. Aqui también se apoya en fuentes literarias, en este caso toma la figura de Rudyard Kipling. Lo interesante de esta sección esté quizás en el hecho de que el imperialismo es un fenómeno nuevo porque por primera vez la clase burguesa asume el dominio político y se obsesiona con la expansión por la expansión llevándola hasta sus últimas consecuencias. Esta nueva formación política dio lugar al racismo y la burocracia por primera vez como ideologías principales de la sociedad moderna, que será una de las bases del futuro movimiento totalitario.
"La dominación total que aspira a organizar la infinita pluralidad y la diferenciación de los seres humanos como si la Humanidad fuese justamente un individuo, solo es posible si todas y cada una de las personas pudieran ser reducidas a una identidad nunca cambiante de reacciones.
El problema es fabricar algo que no existe , es decir, un tipo de especie humana que se parezca a otras especies animales, cuya única libertad consistiría en preservar la especie."
- Ya en la tercera sección, Totalitarismo, la más corta, Hannah Arendt analiza este totalitarismo con la base de las dos secciones anteriores. La idea central está en la anulación del individuo y su espontaneidad para convertirlos en simples mecanismos que formen parte de un todo, la masa anulada. Algunos temas que aborda Hannah Arendt en esta sección no han perdido ni un ápice de actualidad, como puede ser el tema de los refugiados, e incluso y esto es una reflexión muy personal, leyendo esta sección me han venido muchos momentos vividos durante esta última pandemía y la misma Hannah Arendt lo advierte casi al final de esta obra:
"Las soluciones totalitarias pueden muy bien sobrevivir a la caída de los regímenes totalitarios bajo la forma de fuertes tentaciones, que surgirán allí donde parezca imposible aliviar la miseria política, social o económica en una forma valiosa para el hombre.”
En definitiva, una obra necesaria incluso para analizar los tiempos que vivimos y asi poder detectar ciertas pautas que se siguen produciendo escandalosamente: el control cada vez más obsesivo, la vigilancia continua, los movimientos de refugiados, la propaganda camuflada en forma de medios de comunicación, y así, podría continuar con muchos temas más que aborda Hannah Arendt y que siguen de actualidad.
"El poder auténtico comienza donde empieza el secreto."
March 8, 2022
"Laßt, die ihr eingeht, alle Hoffnung fahren!“
Hannah Arendts epochales Werk Elemente und Ursprünge totaler Herrschaft hat mich nun knapp zweieinhalb Monate in meinen Lesestunden begleitet, und ich bin erleichtert und froh, es heute abend beendet zu haben. Erleichtert, weil es besonders in seinem dritten Teil, dem eigentlichen Hauptstück des Werkes, der sich meines Erachtens auch isoliert lesen läßt – dies für alle diejenigen, die vor dem schieren Umfang des Buches zurückschrecken – Einsichten in das Wesen der conditio humana eröffnete, die den Leser kreuzunglücklich machen müssen und ihn für die Zukunft mit Schrecken und Angst erfüllen. Umso düsterer ist die Lektüre freilich in Zeiten wie diesen, in denen ein eiskalter Machtpolitiker wie Putin den Schrecken, den ein diktatorisch organisierter Staat in der Welt verbreiten kann, vor aller Augen aufparadieren läßt, während man andererseits nur hoffen mag, daß die Gegenseite, die in der Verfolgung ihrer globalen Interessen auch nicht ganz anteillos an der Entstehung des Konfliktes war, was in den Massenmedien schon gern vergessen wird, einen kühlen Kopf behält und nicht noch ihrerseits zu einer Ausweitung des Krieges Anlaß geben wird. Froh bin ich allerdings über die abgeschlossene Lektüre insofern, als Arendts Ausführungen mir die Augen geöffnet haben für die Mechanismen, mit denen totalitäre Herrschaft arbeitet, was mir vielleicht in meinem bescheidenen Wirkungsrahmen die Möglichkeit geben kann, den Anfängen zu wehren. Allerdings sind meine Hoffnungen hier auch begrenzt.
Wie bereits gesagt, gliedert sich das Werk in drei größere Teile, die mit Antisemitismus, Imperialismus und Totale Herrschaft überschrieben sind. In den ersten beiden Teilen beleuchtet die Verfasserin die ideologischen Voraussetzungen, die die im 20. Jahrhundert in Deutschland und der Sowjetunion sich etablierende totalitäre Herrschaft im 19. Jahrhundert fand. Einerseits wird hier deutlich, daß sowohl der Antisemitismus als auch der Imperialismus, der in Mittel- und Osteuropa seine Ausprägung in den Pan-Bewegungen hatte, Bewegungen waren, die sowohl anti-staatlich als auch anti-national waren, insofern als sie ideologisch auf die Sprengung nationalstaatlicher Regierungs- und Rechtsformen drangen, womit sie den Weg ebneten für die Unrechtsregime und Größenwahnphantasien Hitlers und Stalins. Der Gedanke, daß der Nationalstaat bei manchen immanenten Problemen, die sich beispielsweise ergeben, wenn in einem Staatsgebilde mehrere Nationen zusammengefaßt werden, doch ein Fundament für Mitbestimmung und das rule of law ergibt, erscheint mir als besonders bemerkenswert, vor allem vor dem Hintergrund, daß heute die EU im Begriff steht, die Verfassungen, die sich die Völker Europas in ihren Nationalstaaten gegeben haben, zugunsten eines „europäischen Rechts“ aufzulösen. Ich persönlich sehe hier manche Gefahr, zumal ich auch nicht umhinkann, der EU in ihrer jetzigen Form angesichts ihres überbordenden bürokratischen Apparats und den damit einhergehenden Rechtsanmaßungen ein demokratisches Defizit zu attestieren, das mich die britische Skepsis durchaus teilen läßt. Auf die Gefahren, die entstehen, wenn eine Bürokratie mehr und mehr an die Stelle offizieller gesetzgebender Versammlungen tritt, geht Arendt übrigens auch im zweiten Teil ihres Buches ein.
In den ersten beiden Teilen beleuchtet die Verfasserin darüber hinaus auch die Wirkmacht von Ideologien, die sich für Arendt durch drei Charakteristika auszeichnen. Zum einen wohnt ihnen ein grundlegendes Bewegungselement inne, indem sie die Menschheitsgeschichte, anders als ältere, zyklisch gedachte Vorstellungen menschlicher Entwicklung, mit einer Teleologie, wie etwa dem Rassenkampf oder dem Kampf der Arbeiterklasse um die Befreiung von der Unterdrückung durch die Klasse der Bourgeoisie, unterlegen. Die Zielrichtung dieser Teleologie ist von vornherein festgelegt, und sie wird als unabdingbar gedacht – die Menschheit hat allenfalls die Möglichkeit, diese Entwicklung zu beschleunigen, indem sie auf den Zug der Geschichte aufspringt und sich ihren Gesetzen bedingungslos unterwirft, indem sie sich selbst zum Brennmaterial dieses Zuges macht. Zweitens operiert die Ideologie unabhängig von unmittelbarer sinnlicher Erfahrung, d.h. sie läßt sich nicht durch die Wirklichkeit falsifizieren, sondern vermittelt ihren Anhängern eine solche Sicherheit, den Schlüssel zur Dechiffrierung von Geschichte geliefert zu haben, daß alles, was ihr scheinbar zuwiderläuft, als Täuschung oder aber als vorübergehender Rückschlag zu deuten ist. Dementsprechend konnte ein überzeugter Nationalsozialist selbst in den Trümmern deutscher Städte noch vom bevorstehenden Endsieg faseln. Drittens bauen Ideologien auf der Annahme auf, daß sich Wirklichkeit aus Prämissen deduzieren lasse, man also, bei „richtiger“ Interpretation der Prämisse und Kenntnis der historischen Gesetzmäßigkeiten, notwendig zu den allein zulässigen Schlußfolgerungen hinsichtlich der zu erwartenden Zukunft kommen könne. Arendt betont, daß vor allem Menschen, die mit dem Gefühl der Verlassenheit kämpfen, die sich von der Außenwelt abgeschnitten fühlen und verlernt haben, mit anderen Menschen zu interagieren – Freiheit und die mit ihr einhergehende Unvorhersagbarkeit menschlichen Handelns liege eben im Verkehr zwischen Mensch und Mensch – für ideologisches Denken besonders anfällig seien – und damit eben auch für die trügerischen und entindividualisierenden Versprechen des Totalitarismus.
Die Isolation des modernen Menschen in unseren heutigen Massengesellschaften – Arendt spricht noch nicht von der Konsumgesellschaft – als eine Bedingung, unter der Totalitarismus zur fauligen Blüte gedeihen kann, ist einer der meistzitierten Gedanken aus ihrem Monumentalwerk, aber es gibt noch viele weitere Aspekte, die es verdienten, an dieser Stelle hervorgehoben zu werden, und gerade im dritten Teil des Buches war mein Bleistift im Dauereinsatz. Auf zwei der von Arendt entwickelten Ansichten möchte ich an dieser Stelle noch kurz eingehen, um einen Eindruck von der Tiefe ihrer Gedanken zum Thema zu vermitteln.
Zum einen beleuchtet sie den Zusammenhang von Propaganda und Macht dahingehend, daß letztere dazu neige, erstere zur Wirklichkeit werden zu lassen, in der Regel mit dem Einsatz gewaltsamer Mittel, denn wenn ein Staat erst einmal in die Hände einer totalitären Bewegung geraten sei, dann werden die staatlichen Strukturen zur bloßen Staffage – berühmt ist ja Arendts Hinweis auf die Neigung einer totalitären Partei, jeder staatlichen Instanz eine entsprechende parteiliche Instanz an die Seite zu stellen, die erstere aushöhlt, so daß die Gewalt von den staatlichen Organisationen, die dann gerne als Abstellgleis für nicht ganz als verläßlich geltende Parteigenossen genutzt werden, auf die Organisationen der Partei übergeht. Geltendes Recht wird dabei nicht formal außer Kraft gesetzt, sondern stillschweigend durch totalitäres Handeln mißachtet, weil dieses sich als Organ des Vollzugs der wahren großen Gesetzmäßigkeiten ansieht. Wenn dann schlichtweg alles im Bereich des Machbaren und der individuelle Mensch als unbedeutender Exponent „des Menschen schlechthin“ betrachtet wird, bedarf es in der totalitären Weltsicht eben keines gesetzten Rechtes mehr, und dieses wird sowohl theoretisch wie auch praktisch bedeutungslos. Auf diese Weise wird die Wirklichkeit im totalitären Staat zu etwas Formbaren, und sie wird eben so lange gewaltsam durchgeknetet, bis sie der Propaganda entspricht.
Dies wird auch im zweiten schonungslos von der Verfasserin analysierten Punkte deutlich, nämlich der Neigung totalitärer Regime, bestimmte Menschengruppen als „objektive Feinde“ zu definieren und zu vernichten. Ist es in der Tyrannis noch Usus, die Feinde angesichts ihrer Haltung zum Tyrannen zu definieren, sie zu bespitzeln und notfalls durch agents provocateurs zum Übertreten bestimmter Regeln zu bringen, so geht der totalitäre Terror erst los, wenn die wirklichen aktiven Feinde des Regimes vernichtet worden sind. Dann nämlich scheidet der Totalitarismus bestimmte Menschengruppen nach „rassischen“ oder nach Klassengesichtspunkten aus dem Ganzen der Menschheit aus – ohne daß diese sich dem Regime aktiv entgegengestellt hätten – und beginnt mit ihrer gnadenlosen Ausmerzung. Dabei gelten alle rationalen Gesichtspunkte nichts, wie man beispielsweise daran sehen kann, daß die Vernichtungspolitik der Nazis den Kriegsbemühungen des Militärs in vielen Fällen ja abträglich waren. Die Lektüre Arendts machte mir in diesem Zusammenhang zum ersten Male auch begreiflich, warum die Opfer Stalins bei den Schauprozessen dieses üble Spiel mitspielten, an dessen Ende sie sehenden Auges in die eigene Vernichtung gingen – einfach deshalb nämlich, weil sie als Anhänger der marxistischen Ideologie dazu gebracht worden waren, sich selbst als „objektive Feinde“ der Partei zu betrachten, die bereit sein sollten, zum Wohle derselben dieses letzte Opfer ihres eigenen Lebens zu bringen. Insgesamt ein gruseliges Zeugnis dessen, wie totalitäres Denken das Menschliche so weit brechen kann, daß der eigene Überlebenswille im Nichts des scheinbar großen Ganzen verpufft.
Arendt sieht im Terror und in der Ausgrenzung und anschließenden Vernichtung bestimmter, immer neu zu definierender Menschengruppen eines der hervorstechenden Merkmale totalitärer Herrschaft, und besonders ihre Ausführungen über das Lagersystem im Nationalsozialismus und unter Stalin leisten eine schonungslose Analyse des Totalitarismus, dessen verbrecherischer Zynismus alle herkömmlichen Grenzen des Verbrechens sprengt. Daß Letzteres der Fall ist, sieht Arendt beispielsweise auch in dem Bemühen des Totalitarismus, nicht nur den einzelnen Menschen selbst umzubringen, sondern auch jedwede Form der Erinnerung an ihn – als hätte es ihn nie gegeben –, wenn etwa Stalin von den Hinterbliebenen eine Distanzierung von seinen Opfern erzwang oder unter den Nazis die Anweisung galt, daß unter keinen Umständen jeweils Informationen über das Schicksal eines Konzentrationslagerinsassen an die Außenwelt gelangen durften. Ein sehr erschütterndes und nachdenklich stimmendes Zitat unter unzählig vielen sei an dieser Stelle eingeflochten:
Auch wenn die Verfasserin eigentlich nur den Nationalsozialismus und die Ära Stalins als Beispiele totalitärer Herrschaft sah, angesichts deren Absolutheitsanspruches eine Koexistenz schlechterdings nicht möglich ist, und auch wenn sie dazu neigte, in jüngerer Geschichte auch Mao in diese Nachbarschaft zu stellen (unter dem Eindruck der „Kulturrevolution“), stellt sie die bange Frage, wie viele Menschen in einer immer komplexer werdenden und die Isolation fördernden Welt die Bereitschaft in sich tragen, ihre eigene Verantwortung und damit ihr eigenes Menschsein und ihre Freiheit willentlich aufzugeben. Diese Frage mag heute im Lichte der Tendenz wohlstandsverwöhnter Menschen, immer mehr Eigenverantwortung beglückt dem sich fürsorglich gebenden Staat zu überlassen, und der gleichzeitigen Neigung auch der westlichen Staaten, ein Narrativ zu predigen, nach dem die großen und zukunftsbedrohenden Probleme unserer Zeit nur auf supranationaler Ebene gelöst werden könnten und auch einen Verzicht auf vieles, was wir als unsere Freiheiten für selbstverständlich gehalten haben, erforderten, sich in immer beunruhigenderer Dringlichkeit stellen. So ist es schon erschreckend, was in Deutschland in den letzten zwei Jahren an Rhetorik und an diskutierten Maßnahmen gegenüber sogenannten „Impfgegnern“ und Kritikern der Corona-Politik aufgeboten wurde, was dann angesichts eines verständlichen Klimas der Furcht auf fruchtbaren Nährboden fiel. Wo das Ganze hinführen wird, steht noch in den Sternen, zumal die Stellschrauben des alltäglichen Wahnsinns durch die rücksichtslosen Expansionsgelüste des Herrn Putin in den letzten Wochen eine neue Drehung erfahren haben. Ich bin in meines Lebens Mitte und habe das Gefühl, daß fast jeder mein Vergil sein möchte …
Arendt hält allerdings auch einen Schimmer von Hoffnung parat, wenn sie darauf beharrt, daß man der scheinbar zwingenden totalitären Logik des „Wer A sagt, muß auch B sagen“ nicht zu folgen habe – schon deshalb nicht, weil mit der Geburt eines jeden Menschen ein neuer Anfang gemacht werde, der keiner Prämisse unterliege. Indes würde ich dies nicht ganz so zuversichtlich sehen wie sie, denn kein neugeborener Mensch kann sich ja unabhängig von dem bereits Gegebenen und seinem Umfeld entwickeln. Unsere Kinder wachsen in einem Klima der Angst, der Unsicherheit und auch des Schuldbewußtseins – „Du hast einen ökologischen Fußabdruck! Du könntest deine Großmutter oder deine Eltern umbringen, wenn du dich nicht strikt an alle Corona-Regeln hältst! Du darfst aufgrund deines Geschlechts und deiner Herkunft zu diesem Problem gar keine Stellung nehmen, sondern hast nur brav zuzuhören! Du gehörst zur letzten Generation, die noch etwas gegen den drohenden Weltuntergang unternehmen kann!“ – auf, und die Gefahr, daß sie unter diesem Druck nur allzu gern bereit sein werden, ihre Verantwortung an die Experten, die Macher und die Technokraten des Neuen Menschen abgeben wollen, ist sicher sehr hoch.
Hannah Arendts epochales Werk Elemente und Ursprünge totaler Herrschaft hat mich nun knapp zweieinhalb Monate in meinen Lesestunden begleitet, und ich bin erleichtert und froh, es heute abend beendet zu haben. Erleichtert, weil es besonders in seinem dritten Teil, dem eigentlichen Hauptstück des Werkes, der sich meines Erachtens auch isoliert lesen läßt – dies für alle diejenigen, die vor dem schieren Umfang des Buches zurückschrecken – Einsichten in das Wesen der conditio humana eröffnete, die den Leser kreuzunglücklich machen müssen und ihn für die Zukunft mit Schrecken und Angst erfüllen. Umso düsterer ist die Lektüre freilich in Zeiten wie diesen, in denen ein eiskalter Machtpolitiker wie Putin den Schrecken, den ein diktatorisch organisierter Staat in der Welt verbreiten kann, vor aller Augen aufparadieren läßt, während man andererseits nur hoffen mag, daß die Gegenseite, die in der Verfolgung ihrer globalen Interessen auch nicht ganz anteillos an der Entstehung des Konfliktes war, was in den Massenmedien schon gern vergessen wird, einen kühlen Kopf behält und nicht noch ihrerseits zu einer Ausweitung des Krieges Anlaß geben wird. Froh bin ich allerdings über die abgeschlossene Lektüre insofern, als Arendts Ausführungen mir die Augen geöffnet haben für die Mechanismen, mit denen totalitäre Herrschaft arbeitet, was mir vielleicht in meinem bescheidenen Wirkungsrahmen die Möglichkeit geben kann, den Anfängen zu wehren. Allerdings sind meine Hoffnungen hier auch begrenzt.
Wie bereits gesagt, gliedert sich das Werk in drei größere Teile, die mit Antisemitismus, Imperialismus und Totale Herrschaft überschrieben sind. In den ersten beiden Teilen beleuchtet die Verfasserin die ideologischen Voraussetzungen, die die im 20. Jahrhundert in Deutschland und der Sowjetunion sich etablierende totalitäre Herrschaft im 19. Jahrhundert fand. Einerseits wird hier deutlich, daß sowohl der Antisemitismus als auch der Imperialismus, der in Mittel- und Osteuropa seine Ausprägung in den Pan-Bewegungen hatte, Bewegungen waren, die sowohl anti-staatlich als auch anti-national waren, insofern als sie ideologisch auf die Sprengung nationalstaatlicher Regierungs- und Rechtsformen drangen, womit sie den Weg ebneten für die Unrechtsregime und Größenwahnphantasien Hitlers und Stalins. Der Gedanke, daß der Nationalstaat bei manchen immanenten Problemen, die sich beispielsweise ergeben, wenn in einem Staatsgebilde mehrere Nationen zusammengefaßt werden, doch ein Fundament für Mitbestimmung und das rule of law ergibt, erscheint mir als besonders bemerkenswert, vor allem vor dem Hintergrund, daß heute die EU im Begriff steht, die Verfassungen, die sich die Völker Europas in ihren Nationalstaaten gegeben haben, zugunsten eines „europäischen Rechts“ aufzulösen. Ich persönlich sehe hier manche Gefahr, zumal ich auch nicht umhinkann, der EU in ihrer jetzigen Form angesichts ihres überbordenden bürokratischen Apparats und den damit einhergehenden Rechtsanmaßungen ein demokratisches Defizit zu attestieren, das mich die britische Skepsis durchaus teilen läßt. Auf die Gefahren, die entstehen, wenn eine Bürokratie mehr und mehr an die Stelle offizieller gesetzgebender Versammlungen tritt, geht Arendt übrigens auch im zweiten Teil ihres Buches ein.
In den ersten beiden Teilen beleuchtet die Verfasserin darüber hinaus auch die Wirkmacht von Ideologien, die sich für Arendt durch drei Charakteristika auszeichnen. Zum einen wohnt ihnen ein grundlegendes Bewegungselement inne, indem sie die Menschheitsgeschichte, anders als ältere, zyklisch gedachte Vorstellungen menschlicher Entwicklung, mit einer Teleologie, wie etwa dem Rassenkampf oder dem Kampf der Arbeiterklasse um die Befreiung von der Unterdrückung durch die Klasse der Bourgeoisie, unterlegen. Die Zielrichtung dieser Teleologie ist von vornherein festgelegt, und sie wird als unabdingbar gedacht – die Menschheit hat allenfalls die Möglichkeit, diese Entwicklung zu beschleunigen, indem sie auf den Zug der Geschichte aufspringt und sich ihren Gesetzen bedingungslos unterwirft, indem sie sich selbst zum Brennmaterial dieses Zuges macht. Zweitens operiert die Ideologie unabhängig von unmittelbarer sinnlicher Erfahrung, d.h. sie läßt sich nicht durch die Wirklichkeit falsifizieren, sondern vermittelt ihren Anhängern eine solche Sicherheit, den Schlüssel zur Dechiffrierung von Geschichte geliefert zu haben, daß alles, was ihr scheinbar zuwiderläuft, als Täuschung oder aber als vorübergehender Rückschlag zu deuten ist. Dementsprechend konnte ein überzeugter Nationalsozialist selbst in den Trümmern deutscher Städte noch vom bevorstehenden Endsieg faseln. Drittens bauen Ideologien auf der Annahme auf, daß sich Wirklichkeit aus Prämissen deduzieren lasse, man also, bei „richtiger“ Interpretation der Prämisse und Kenntnis der historischen Gesetzmäßigkeiten, notwendig zu den allein zulässigen Schlußfolgerungen hinsichtlich der zu erwartenden Zukunft kommen könne. Arendt betont, daß vor allem Menschen, die mit dem Gefühl der Verlassenheit kämpfen, die sich von der Außenwelt abgeschnitten fühlen und verlernt haben, mit anderen Menschen zu interagieren – Freiheit und die mit ihr einhergehende Unvorhersagbarkeit menschlichen Handelns liege eben im Verkehr zwischen Mensch und Mensch – für ideologisches Denken besonders anfällig seien – und damit eben auch für die trügerischen und entindividualisierenden Versprechen des Totalitarismus.
Die Isolation des modernen Menschen in unseren heutigen Massengesellschaften – Arendt spricht noch nicht von der Konsumgesellschaft – als eine Bedingung, unter der Totalitarismus zur fauligen Blüte gedeihen kann, ist einer der meistzitierten Gedanken aus ihrem Monumentalwerk, aber es gibt noch viele weitere Aspekte, die es verdienten, an dieser Stelle hervorgehoben zu werden, und gerade im dritten Teil des Buches war mein Bleistift im Dauereinsatz. Auf zwei der von Arendt entwickelten Ansichten möchte ich an dieser Stelle noch kurz eingehen, um einen Eindruck von der Tiefe ihrer Gedanken zum Thema zu vermitteln.
Zum einen beleuchtet sie den Zusammenhang von Propaganda und Macht dahingehend, daß letztere dazu neige, erstere zur Wirklichkeit werden zu lassen, in der Regel mit dem Einsatz gewaltsamer Mittel, denn wenn ein Staat erst einmal in die Hände einer totalitären Bewegung geraten sei, dann werden die staatlichen Strukturen zur bloßen Staffage – berühmt ist ja Arendts Hinweis auf die Neigung einer totalitären Partei, jeder staatlichen Instanz eine entsprechende parteiliche Instanz an die Seite zu stellen, die erstere aushöhlt, so daß die Gewalt von den staatlichen Organisationen, die dann gerne als Abstellgleis für nicht ganz als verläßlich geltende Parteigenossen genutzt werden, auf die Organisationen der Partei übergeht. Geltendes Recht wird dabei nicht formal außer Kraft gesetzt, sondern stillschweigend durch totalitäres Handeln mißachtet, weil dieses sich als Organ des Vollzugs der wahren großen Gesetzmäßigkeiten ansieht. Wenn dann schlichtweg alles im Bereich des Machbaren und der individuelle Mensch als unbedeutender Exponent „des Menschen schlechthin“ betrachtet wird, bedarf es in der totalitären Weltsicht eben keines gesetzten Rechtes mehr, und dieses wird sowohl theoretisch wie auch praktisch bedeutungslos. Auf diese Weise wird die Wirklichkeit im totalitären Staat zu etwas Formbaren, und sie wird eben so lange gewaltsam durchgeknetet, bis sie der Propaganda entspricht.
Dies wird auch im zweiten schonungslos von der Verfasserin analysierten Punkte deutlich, nämlich der Neigung totalitärer Regime, bestimmte Menschengruppen als „objektive Feinde“ zu definieren und zu vernichten. Ist es in der Tyrannis noch Usus, die Feinde angesichts ihrer Haltung zum Tyrannen zu definieren, sie zu bespitzeln und notfalls durch agents provocateurs zum Übertreten bestimmter Regeln zu bringen, so geht der totalitäre Terror erst los, wenn die wirklichen aktiven Feinde des Regimes vernichtet worden sind. Dann nämlich scheidet der Totalitarismus bestimmte Menschengruppen nach „rassischen“ oder nach Klassengesichtspunkten aus dem Ganzen der Menschheit aus – ohne daß diese sich dem Regime aktiv entgegengestellt hätten – und beginnt mit ihrer gnadenlosen Ausmerzung. Dabei gelten alle rationalen Gesichtspunkte nichts, wie man beispielsweise daran sehen kann, daß die Vernichtungspolitik der Nazis den Kriegsbemühungen des Militärs in vielen Fällen ja abträglich waren. Die Lektüre Arendts machte mir in diesem Zusammenhang zum ersten Male auch begreiflich, warum die Opfer Stalins bei den Schauprozessen dieses üble Spiel mitspielten, an dessen Ende sie sehenden Auges in die eigene Vernichtung gingen – einfach deshalb nämlich, weil sie als Anhänger der marxistischen Ideologie dazu gebracht worden waren, sich selbst als „objektive Feinde“ der Partei zu betrachten, die bereit sein sollten, zum Wohle derselben dieses letzte Opfer ihres eigenen Lebens zu bringen. Insgesamt ein gruseliges Zeugnis dessen, wie totalitäres Denken das Menschliche so weit brechen kann, daß der eigene Überlebenswille im Nichts des scheinbar großen Ganzen verpufft.
Arendt sieht im Terror und in der Ausgrenzung und anschließenden Vernichtung bestimmter, immer neu zu definierender Menschengruppen eines der hervorstechenden Merkmale totalitärer Herrschaft, und besonders ihre Ausführungen über das Lagersystem im Nationalsozialismus und unter Stalin leisten eine schonungslose Analyse des Totalitarismus, dessen verbrecherischer Zynismus alle herkömmlichen Grenzen des Verbrechens sprengt. Daß Letzteres der Fall ist, sieht Arendt beispielsweise auch in dem Bemühen des Totalitarismus, nicht nur den einzelnen Menschen selbst umzubringen, sondern auch jedwede Form der Erinnerung an ihn – als hätte es ihn nie gegeben –, wenn etwa Stalin von den Hinterbliebenen eine Distanzierung von seinen Opfern erzwang oder unter den Nazis die Anweisung galt, daß unter keinen Umständen jeweils Informationen über das Schicksal eines Konzentrationslagerinsassen an die Außenwelt gelangen durften. Ein sehr erschütterndes und nachdenklich stimmendes Zitat unter unzählig vielen sei an dieser Stelle eingeflochten:
“Die Lager dienen nicht nur der Ausrottung von Menschen und der Erniedrigung von Individuen, sondern auch dem ungeheuerlichen Experiment, unter wissenschaftlich exakten Bedingungen Spontaneität als menschliche Verhaltensweise abzuschaffen und Menschen in ein Ding zu verwandeln, das unter gleichen Bedingungen sich immer gleich verhalten wird, also etwas, was selbst Tiere nicht sind; denn der Pawlowsche Hund, den man bekanntlich darauf dressiert hatte, nicht zu essen, wenn er hungrig war, sondern wenn eine Glocke ertönte, war ein pervertiertes Tier.“
Auch wenn die Verfasserin eigentlich nur den Nationalsozialismus und die Ära Stalins als Beispiele totalitärer Herrschaft sah, angesichts deren Absolutheitsanspruches eine Koexistenz schlechterdings nicht möglich ist, und auch wenn sie dazu neigte, in jüngerer Geschichte auch Mao in diese Nachbarschaft zu stellen (unter dem Eindruck der „Kulturrevolution“), stellt sie die bange Frage, wie viele Menschen in einer immer komplexer werdenden und die Isolation fördernden Welt die Bereitschaft in sich tragen, ihre eigene Verantwortung und damit ihr eigenes Menschsein und ihre Freiheit willentlich aufzugeben. Diese Frage mag heute im Lichte der Tendenz wohlstandsverwöhnter Menschen, immer mehr Eigenverantwortung beglückt dem sich fürsorglich gebenden Staat zu überlassen, und der gleichzeitigen Neigung auch der westlichen Staaten, ein Narrativ zu predigen, nach dem die großen und zukunftsbedrohenden Probleme unserer Zeit nur auf supranationaler Ebene gelöst werden könnten und auch einen Verzicht auf vieles, was wir als unsere Freiheiten für selbstverständlich gehalten haben, erforderten, sich in immer beunruhigenderer Dringlichkeit stellen. So ist es schon erschreckend, was in Deutschland in den letzten zwei Jahren an Rhetorik und an diskutierten Maßnahmen gegenüber sogenannten „Impfgegnern“ und Kritikern der Corona-Politik aufgeboten wurde, was dann angesichts eines verständlichen Klimas der Furcht auf fruchtbaren Nährboden fiel. Wo das Ganze hinführen wird, steht noch in den Sternen, zumal die Stellschrauben des alltäglichen Wahnsinns durch die rücksichtslosen Expansionsgelüste des Herrn Putin in den letzten Wochen eine neue Drehung erfahren haben. Ich bin in meines Lebens Mitte und habe das Gefühl, daß fast jeder mein Vergil sein möchte …
Arendt hält allerdings auch einen Schimmer von Hoffnung parat, wenn sie darauf beharrt, daß man der scheinbar zwingenden totalitären Logik des „Wer A sagt, muß auch B sagen“ nicht zu folgen habe – schon deshalb nicht, weil mit der Geburt eines jeden Menschen ein neuer Anfang gemacht werde, der keiner Prämisse unterliege. Indes würde ich dies nicht ganz so zuversichtlich sehen wie sie, denn kein neugeborener Mensch kann sich ja unabhängig von dem bereits Gegebenen und seinem Umfeld entwickeln. Unsere Kinder wachsen in einem Klima der Angst, der Unsicherheit und auch des Schuldbewußtseins – „Du hast einen ökologischen Fußabdruck! Du könntest deine Großmutter oder deine Eltern umbringen, wenn du dich nicht strikt an alle Corona-Regeln hältst! Du darfst aufgrund deines Geschlechts und deiner Herkunft zu diesem Problem gar keine Stellung nehmen, sondern hast nur brav zuzuhören! Du gehörst zur letzten Generation, die noch etwas gegen den drohenden Weltuntergang unternehmen kann!“ – auf, und die Gefahr, daß sie unter diesem Druck nur allzu gern bereit sein werden, ihre Verantwortung an die Experten, die Macher und die Technokraten des Neuen Menschen abgeben wollen, ist sicher sehr hoch.
June 23, 2023
Хана Арент е изключително амбициозна в този свой труд. Но макар той да има заслуги към несекващо актуалната тема за тоталитаризма, не само не я изчерпва, а на моменти сериозно се отклонява в сферата на абстрактното, академичното и генерализираното. Или вместо да изложи ясна теза, принуждава читателя да скучае над безброй увъртания.
Най-силната част е третата последна секция - “Тоталитаризмът” - 4⭐️
Позовавайки се на нацизма и болшевизма, Аренд на места е брилянтно актуална и днес. Жаждата да се промени не просто ситуацията, а цялото човечество и отмерването на целите в хилядолетия, заковани не в простосмъртни юридически системи, а в разконспирирани “висши” закони (на природата, на историята) е отличителната черта на тоталитаризма. А бездейна, аморфна, апатична маса от хора, която е встрани от всякакъв обществен живот, е първият инкубатор за омайните песни на идеологията за тоталното спасение/ господство.
Предходната стъпка е ”Империализмът” - 1⭐️
Тук Аренд не е уцелила болезнените и вечни точки на Голямата Игра. А от някои нейни изказвания за расизма и робството тръпки от ужас ме полазиха. У Аренд има твърде много комплекси за превъзходство и всезнание, което в тази конкретна секция, освен че са скучни ограничени, са и крайно едностранчиво-повърхностни. Общо взето, за нея африканците са половин еволюционен етаж над горилите, и ако не са били белите заселници - жална и майка на майка Африка. Стилът и е на ниво, както винаги, но налива вода в продънен съд.
В началната част, ”Антисемитизмът” (2⭐️) най-накрая започнах да разбирам корените на омразата към евреите в Европа. Историческата обвързаност на евреите с “небогоугодни” и “противни” занятия като банки и лихварство през средновековието ги превръща в кредитори на кралете, а в новото време е трамплин за успеха им в индустрията, търговията и банкирането. От друга страна, те винаги остават хем част от държавите, в които живеят, хем съвсем отделна клетка. Тук отново е твърде протяжно на места, без ясна теза. За процеса Драйфус, например, има много по-стегнати и увлекателни източници, а през цялото време Аренд се бои да задълбае в която и да е посока. На няколко пъти заспивах. Освен това историческият поглед е крайно ограничен до 19 век, и доста непредставителен.
Ако третата секция беше самостоятелно произведение, щеше да е една от добрите книги по темата. Но в комплект с досадно разводнените и даже претенциозно повърхностни първи две части, книгата е - в най-добрия случай - поносима.
***
▶️ Цитати:
“Убеждението идва от мненията, не от истината"
“Най-голямата привилегия е равенството.”
“Този страх от нещо подобно на теб, което все пак при никакви обстоятелства не трябва да бъде като теб, ляга в основата на робството и се превръща в основата на расовото общество.”
“Успехът на тоталитарните движения сред масите обзоначава края на две илюзии за всички демократично управлявани страни (...). Първата илюзия е, че народът в своето мнозинство взема активно участие в управлението (...). (...) политически неутрални и несъпричастни маси могат да се окажат мнозвинството в една демократично управлявана страна и поради това демокрацията може да функционира по правила, признавани на дело само от едно малцинство. Втората демократична утопия, срината от от тоталитарните движения е, че тези политически индиферентни маси са без значение, че те действително са неутрални (...)."
“…масовите движения…най-леко и най-бързо привличат не социализираните, не индивидуалистично настроените членове на традиционните партии, а съвършено неорганизираните…, които открай време отричат всякаква ангажираност и задължение към обществото.”
“Основната характеристика на човека-маса е не неговата бруталност или назадничавост, а неговата изолация и липса на нормални обществени контакти.”"
“Където тоталитаризмът притежава абсолютен контрол, той заменя пропагандата с индоктриниране”
“…пропагандата е един, при това вероятно най-важният, инструмент на тоталитаризма в отношенията му с нетоталитарния свят, докато терорът, обратно, е самата същина на неговата форма на управление.”
“Мултиплицирането на служби обезмисля всякаква отговорност и компетентност.”
“…концентрационните лагери не се изграждат, за да произвеждат нещо - единствената им неизменна икономическа функция е да финансират собствения си надзорен апарат…”
“За тоталитарните режими всеки човек, все още непревърнал се в сбор от животински реакции и механично изпълнява и функции, е съвършено излишен.”
Най-силната част е третата последна секция - “Тоталитаризмът” - 4⭐️
Позовавайки се на нацизма и болшевизма, Аренд на места е брилянтно актуална и днес. Жаждата да се промени не просто ситуацията, а цялото човечество и отмерването на целите в хилядолетия, заковани не в простосмъртни юридически системи, а в разконспирирани “висши” закони (на природата, на историята) е отличителната черта на тоталитаризма. А бездейна, аморфна, апатична маса от хора, която е встрани от всякакъв обществен живот, е първият инкубатор за омайните песни на идеологията за тоталното спасение/ господство.
Предходната стъпка е ”Империализмът” - 1⭐️
Тук Аренд не е уцелила болезнените и вечни точки на Голямата Игра. А от някои нейни изказвания за расизма и робството тръпки от ужас ме полазиха. У Аренд има твърде много комплекси за превъзходство и всезнание, което в тази конкретна секция, освен че са скучни ограничени, са и крайно едностранчиво-повърхностни. Общо взето, за нея африканците са половин еволюционен етаж над горилите, и ако не са били белите заселници - жална и майка на майка Африка. Стилът и е на ниво, както винаги, но налива вода в продънен съд.
В началната част, ”Антисемитизмът” (2⭐️) най-накрая започнах да разбирам корените на омразата към евреите в Европа. Историческата обвързаност на евреите с “небогоугодни” и “противни” занятия като банки и лихварство през средновековието ги превръща в кредитори на кралете, а в новото време е трамплин за успеха им в индустрията, търговията и банкирането. От друга страна, те винаги остават хем част от държавите, в които живеят, хем съвсем отделна клетка. Тук отново е твърде протяжно на места, без ясна теза. За процеса Драйфус, например, има много по-стегнати и увлекателни източници, а през цялото време Аренд се бои да задълбае в която и да е посока. На няколко пъти заспивах. Освен това историческият поглед е крайно ограничен до 19 век, и доста непредставителен.
Ако третата секция беше самостоятелно произведение, щеше да е една от добрите книги по темата. Но в комплект с досадно разводнените и даже претенциозно повърхностни първи две части, книгата е - в най-добрия случай - поносима.
***
▶️ Цитати:
“Убеждението идва от мненията, не от истината"
“Най-голямата привилегия е равенството.”
“Този страх от нещо подобно на теб, което все пак при никакви обстоятелства не трябва да бъде като теб, ляга в основата на робството и се превръща в основата на расовото общество.”
“Успехът на тоталитарните движения сред масите обзоначава края на две илюзии за всички демократично управлявани страни (...). Първата илюзия е, че народът в своето мнозинство взема активно участие в управлението (...). (...) политически неутрални и несъпричастни маси могат да се окажат мнозвинството в една демократично управлявана страна и поради това демокрацията може да функционира по правила, признавани на дело само от едно малцинство. Втората демократична утопия, срината от от тоталитарните движения е, че тези политически индиферентни маси са без значение, че те действително са неутрални (...)."
“…масовите движения…най-леко и най-бързо привличат не социализираните, не индивидуалистично настроените членове на традиционните партии, а съвършено неорганизираните…, които открай време отричат всякаква ангажираност и задължение към обществото.”
“Основната характеристика на човека-маса е не неговата бруталност или назадничавост, а неговата изолация и липса на нормални обществени контакти.”"
“Където тоталитаризмът притежава абсолютен контрол, той заменя пропагандата с индоктриниране”
“…пропагандата е един, при това вероятно най-важният, инструмент на тоталитаризма в отношенията му с нетоталитарния свят, докато терорът, обратно, е самата същина на неговата форма на управление.”
“Мултиплицирането на служби обезмисля всякаква отговорност и компетентност.”
“…концентрационните лагери не се изграждат, за да произвеждат нещо - единствената им неизменна икономическа функция е да финансират собствения си надзорен апарат…”
“За тоталитарните режими всеки човек, все още непревърнал се в сбор от животински реакции и механично изпълнява и функции, е съвършено излишен.”
April 2, 2019
"إن الجحيم التوتاليتاري لا يُثبت سوى أمر واحد: هو أن سلطة الإنسان هي أعظم، بما لا يُقاس، مما جَرُؤوا على تخيّله؛ وهو أن بمقدور الإنسان أن يُحقق روعة جحيمية دون أن تهوي السماء ولا أن تنفتح الأرض."
إحدى الكتب التي وددت قراءتها منذ زمن طويل، ويا إلهي كم يصعب عليّ كتابة مراجعة عن هكذا كتاب، لا أدري بما يصيب عقلي عندما اقرأ كتاباً مثل هذا!
أسس التوتاليتارية، يعد من أهم المراجع السياسية التي طرحت مفهوم النظام التوتاليتاري أو الشمولي بشكل تحليلي دقيق جداً استناداً إلى أهم نموذجين للأنظمة التوتاليتارية: النظام النازي في عهد هتلر والنظام البلشفي في عهد ستالين. تبيّنا هنا كيف يختلف النظام التوتاليتاري عن أي نظام استبدادي آخر، وكيف تتحوّل طبقات المجتمع إلى جماهير، ودور الدعاية والأجهزة السرية ومعسكرات الاعتقال والإرهاب في تدعيم النظام التوتاليتاري. رغم صعوبة لغة وأسلوب الكتاب بالنسبة لي، والزخم الهائل في كمية المراجع والهوامش الموجودة فيه، إلّا أنني قرأته إلى النهاية وأشبعت فضولي المعرفي عنه. ولا زلت أود أن اقرأ المزيد للمنظرّة الشهيرة حنة أرندت.
...
April 1, 2021
So I think it's pretty obvious why I read this, and pretty obvious why I had my first queue for a book older than a few years old: people are freaked, they are nervous, they want answers and our other institutions have utterly failed us, forget preparing us for any of what we should be expecting.
Arendt spends a lot of time tracing the origins of anti-Semitism, which seems appropriate except that she doesn't spill too much ink connecting that to the rise of Nazism. Overall this book was a bit too long and a bit too academic to really grip me, but there were eerie parallels to our present situation that would grab my attention:
On today's complaisant GOP:
...on the flourishing of callousness and the demise of decency:
...on the elevation of economic self-interest over societal good:
...on the refusal to disavow repugnant behavior:
...on the contempt for facts, and the interest would-be totalitarians have in anomie and destruction:
*sigh* It's not that I believe that we are going to have a Holocaust redux, it's just that I don't understand how people can be so calm, so willing to give the benefit of the doubt. As Primo Levi and others have pointed out, these things rely on manipulable people and incremental deterioration of societal norms. Are we not experiencing that to degrees seldom seen before?
Having read this book I feel fairly certain that the evil genius and psychological understanding of men like Stalin and Hitler is beyond the capacity of a lummox like Trump, but I take such little solace in this because I do believe that he is surrounding himself with the amoral semi-deep-thinkers who are fully capable of wielding extreme power (see, e.g.: this) and trading on bureaucratic inertia to accomplish unknowable and untenable ends.
Fuck.
I need a hug.
And a beer.
Arendt spends a lot of time tracing the origins of anti-Semitism, which seems appropriate except that she doesn't spill too much ink connecting that to the rise of Nazism. Overall this book was a bit too long and a bit too academic to really grip me, but there were eerie parallels to our present situation that would grab my attention:
On today's complaisant GOP:
The attraction which the totalitarian movements exert on the elite, so long as and wherever they have not seized power, has been perplexing because the patently vulgar and arbitrary, positive doctrines of totalitarianism are more conspicuous to the outsider and mere observer than the general mood which pervades the pretotalitarian atmosphere. These doctrines were so much at variance with generally accepted intellectual, cultural, and moral standards that one could conclude that only an inherent fundamental shortcoming of character in the intellectual. . . or a perverse self-hatred of the spirit, accounted for the delight with which the elite accepted the 'ideas' of the mob. . . . What the spokesmen of humanism and liberalism usually overlook, in their bitter disappointment and their unfamiliarity with the more general experiences of the time is that an atmosphere in which all traditional values and propositions had evaporated . . . in a sense made it easier to accept patently absurd propositions than the old truths which had become pious banalities . . . . Vulgarity with its cynical dismissal of respected standards and accepted theories carried with it a frank admission of the worst and a disregard for all pretenses which were easily mistaken for courage and a new style of life.
...on the flourishing of callousness and the demise of decency:
Since the bourgeoisie claimed to be the guardian of Western traditions and confounded all moral issues by parading publicly virtues which it not only did not possess in private and business life, but actually held in contempt, it seemed revolutionary to admit cruelty, disregard human values, and general amorality, because this at least destroyed the duplicity upon which the existing society seemed to rest. What a temptation to flaunt extreme attitudes in the hypocritical twilight of double moral standards, to wear publicly the mask of cruelty if everybody was patently inconsiderate and pretended to be gentle . . . .
...on the elevation of economic self-interest over societal good:
The mass man whom Himmler organized for the greatest crimes ever committed in history bore the features of the philistine rather than of the mob man, and was the bourgeois who in the midst of the ruins of his world worried about nothing so much as his private security, was ready to sacrifice everything—belief, honor, dignity—on the slightest provocation. Nothing proved easier to destroy than the privacy and private morality of people who thought of nothing but safeguarding their private lives.
...on the refusal to disavow repugnant behavior:
The Nazis did not strike at prominent figures as had been done in the earlier wave of political crimes in Germany (the murder of Rathenau and Erzberger); instead, by killing small socialist functionaries or influential members of opposing parties, they attempted to prove to the population the dangers involved in mere membership. This kind of mass terror, which still operated on a comparatively small scale, increased steadily because neither the police nor the courts seriously prosecuted political offenders on the so-called Right. It was valuable as what a Nazi publicist has aptly called 'power propaganda': it made clear to the population at large that the power of the Nazis was greater than that of the authorities and that it was safer to be a member of a Nazi paramilitary organization than a loyal Republican. This impression was greatly strengthened by the specific use the Nazis made of their political crimes. They always admitted them publicly, never apologized for 'excesses of the lower ranks'—such apologies were used only by Nazi sympathizers—and impressed the population as being very different from the 'idle talkers' of other parties.
The similarities between this kind of terror and plain gangsterism are too obvious to be pointed out.
...on the contempt for facts, and the interest would-be totalitarians have in anomie and destruction:
Mass leaders in power have one concern which overrules all utilitarian considerations: to make their predictions come true. The Nazis did not hesitate to use, at the end of the war, the concentrated force of their still intact organization to bring about as complete a destruction of Germany as possible, in order to make true their prediction that the German people would be ruined in case of defeat. The propaganda effect of infallibility, the striking success of posing as a mere interpreting agent of predictable forces, has encouraged in totalitarian dictators the habit of announcing their political intentions in the form of prophecy. The most famous example is Hitler's announcement to the German Reichstag in January, 1939: 'I want today once again to make a prophecy: In case the Jewish financiers ... succeed once more in hurling the peoples into a world war, the result will be ... the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.' Translated into nontotalitarian language, this meant: 'I intend to make war and I intend to kill the Jews of Europe.' . . .
As soon as the execution of the victims has been carried out, the 'prophecy' becomes a retrospective alibi: nothing happened but what had already been predicted....
This method, like other totalitarian propaganda methods, is foolproof only after the movements have seized power. Then all debate about the truth or falsity of a totalitarian dictator's prediction is as weird as arguing with a potential murderer about whether his future victim is dead or alive—since by killing the person in question the murderer can promptly provide proof of the correctness of his statement. The only valid argument under such conditions is promptly to rescue the person whose death is predicted. Before mass leaders seize the power to fit reality to their lies, their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of man who can fabricate it....
In other words, the method of infallible prediction, more than any other totalitarian propaganda device, betrays its ultimate goal of world conquest, since only in a world completely under his control could the totalitarian ruler possibly realize all his lies and make true all his prophecies.
*sigh* It's not that I believe that we are going to have a Holocaust redux, it's just that I don't understand how people can be so calm, so willing to give the benefit of the doubt. As Primo Levi and others have pointed out, these things rely on manipulable people and incremental deterioration of societal norms. Are we not experiencing that to degrees seldom seen before?
Having read this book I feel fairly certain that the evil genius and psychological understanding of men like Stalin and Hitler is beyond the capacity of a lummox like Trump, but I take such little solace in this because I do believe that he is surrounding himself with the amoral semi-deep-thinkers who are fully capable of wielding extreme power (see, e.g.: this) and trading on bureaucratic inertia to accomplish unknowable and untenable ends.
Fuck.
I need a hug.
And a beer.
June 19, 2020
The Origins of Totalitarianism von Hannah Arendt ist eines der Standardwerke zum Thema Totalitarismus. Mit dem Nationalsozialismus und dem Bolschewismus hat das 20. Jahrhundert gleich zwei totalitäre Bewegungen hervorgebracht. Obwohl beide wieder untergegangen sind, haben sie doch eine ganze Epoche nachhaltig geprägt. Arendt setzt bei der Untersuchung der Ursprünge dieser Bewegungen, zeitlich sehr viel früher an. Im ersten Teil Antisemitismus, steht die historische Rolle der Juden in den europäischen Gesellschaften im Mittelpunkt der Betrachtung. Insbesondere wird auf den Unterschied, zwischen altbekannten Formen von Judendiskriminierung und dem im 19. Jahrhundert entstandenen politischen Antisemitismus, eingegangen. Interessant fand ich, dass sich Arendt nicht scheute literarische Quellen einzubeziehen. So verweist sie u.a. auf Marcel Prousts Die Suche nach der verlorenen Zeit, als ein Musterbeispiel für die Rolle von Juden in nicht-jüdischen Gesellschaften.
Im zweiten Teil geht es um den Imperialismus und seine Auswirkungen. Es ist keine Neuigkeit, dass einige von Arendts Bemerkungen zum Thema Kolonialismus umstritten sind. Da ist zum Beispiel von einer "katastrophenhaften Einförmigkeit ihrer Existenz" und "geschichts- und tatenlosen Menschen" die Rede. Gemeint sind damit die Ursprungsbevölkerungen von Amerika, Afrika und Australien. Die Bezeichnung "Wilde" wird gleichfalls sehr häufig in einer verblüffend unbedarften Weise benutzt. Solche Zuschreibungen erinnern an Hegels Verdikt, Geschichte sei in Afrika nicht möglich ("Es ist das in sich gedrungen bleibende Goldland, das Kinderland, das jenseits des Tages der selbstbewussten Geschichte in die schwarze Farbe der Nacht gehüllt ist."). Zwischen Hegels Philosophie der Geschichte und Arendts Publikation lag allerdings mehr als ein Jahrhundert. Hannah Arendt Rassismus zu unterstellen wäre angesichts ihrer Lebensgeschichte absurd. Klar ist die Absicht zu erkennen, die Entstehung von Rassismus anhand des damals herrschenden Zeitgeists zu erklären. Doch reproduziert sie selbst stellenweise kolonialistische Denkmuster. Schwer verständlich, bei einer Intellektuellen ihres Kalibers.
Der dritte Teil ist dann ganz dem Phänomen des Totalitarismus vorbehalten. Am Beispiel von Nationalsozialismus und Bolschewismus erfolgt eine umfassende Darstellung der Charakteristika totalitärer Ideologien. Totalitäre Ideologien zielen nicht bloß auf die revolutionäre Umwälzung einer Gesellschaft, sondern auf die Veränderung der menschlichen Natur selbst. Auch wenn die beiden großen totalitären Systeme schon lange im Orkus der Geschichte verschwunden sind. Die Versuchung, politische, soziale oder ökonomische Krisen, mittels totalitärer Lösungen zu bewältigen, bleibt. Insofern ist Hannah Arendts Studie nicht allein von historischem Interesse. Einiges darin, wie z.B. die prekäre Situation von Flüchtlingen oder die potentielle Bedrohung durch umfassende Überwachungssysteme, hat nichts an Aktualität eingebüßt.
Im zweiten Teil geht es um den Imperialismus und seine Auswirkungen. Es ist keine Neuigkeit, dass einige von Arendts Bemerkungen zum Thema Kolonialismus umstritten sind. Da ist zum Beispiel von einer "katastrophenhaften Einförmigkeit ihrer Existenz" und "geschichts- und tatenlosen Menschen" die Rede. Gemeint sind damit die Ursprungsbevölkerungen von Amerika, Afrika und Australien. Die Bezeichnung "Wilde" wird gleichfalls sehr häufig in einer verblüffend unbedarften Weise benutzt. Solche Zuschreibungen erinnern an Hegels Verdikt, Geschichte sei in Afrika nicht möglich ("Es ist das in sich gedrungen bleibende Goldland, das Kinderland, das jenseits des Tages der selbstbewussten Geschichte in die schwarze Farbe der Nacht gehüllt ist."). Zwischen Hegels Philosophie der Geschichte und Arendts Publikation lag allerdings mehr als ein Jahrhundert. Hannah Arendt Rassismus zu unterstellen wäre angesichts ihrer Lebensgeschichte absurd. Klar ist die Absicht zu erkennen, die Entstehung von Rassismus anhand des damals herrschenden Zeitgeists zu erklären. Doch reproduziert sie selbst stellenweise kolonialistische Denkmuster. Schwer verständlich, bei einer Intellektuellen ihres Kalibers.
Der dritte Teil ist dann ganz dem Phänomen des Totalitarismus vorbehalten. Am Beispiel von Nationalsozialismus und Bolschewismus erfolgt eine umfassende Darstellung der Charakteristika totalitärer Ideologien. Totalitäre Ideologien zielen nicht bloß auf die revolutionäre Umwälzung einer Gesellschaft, sondern auf die Veränderung der menschlichen Natur selbst. Auch wenn die beiden großen totalitären Systeme schon lange im Orkus der Geschichte verschwunden sind. Die Versuchung, politische, soziale oder ökonomische Krisen, mittels totalitärer Lösungen zu bewältigen, bleibt. Insofern ist Hannah Arendts Studie nicht allein von historischem Interesse. Einiges darin, wie z.B. die prekäre Situation von Flüchtlingen oder die potentielle Bedrohung durch umfassende Überwachungssysteme, hat nichts an Aktualität eingebüßt.
June 7, 2020
It has taken me 9 months to finish this book. I am glad it took me so long because reading this should absolutely under no circumstance be an effort of racing your own self on its pages. This is a difficult book, both in its choice of subject and in its writing. In it, history, politics, economy, psychology and many other themes are discussed and analyzed, in order to attempt a description of the two main totalitarian regimes of Europe in the 20th Century, Nazism and communism. It is peppered with both facts and speculations (not the bad kind, though).
Arendt both respects and dissects the perpetrators and the victims. She manages to be both objectively far away and subjectively close enough to never lose sight of the fact that this is a history book about horror and hell. I very simply enjoyed each page of this book, even when it was tedious: her tone is never condescending, her knowledge never dropped from a place higher than you, her sentences flow logically and are written clearly.... In terms of literary critique, I have no feeling but admiration for Hannah Arendt as an author, as I do in personal terms for her as a woman, as a human being. I personally aspire to be even half as eloquent as her, and hope to be even a quarter as capable of deep, meaningful analysis in my life.
This work will take time to read, it will take energy and it will take a lot of patience to truly understand what it is laying out in front of you. However, I can safely say that, up to this point in my historical readings on the subject, this is by far the best one out there.
Arendt both respects and dissects the perpetrators and the victims. She manages to be both objectively far away and subjectively close enough to never lose sight of the fact that this is a history book about horror and hell. I very simply enjoyed each page of this book, even when it was tedious: her tone is never condescending, her knowledge never dropped from a place higher than you, her sentences flow logically and are written clearly.... In terms of literary critique, I have no feeling but admiration for Hannah Arendt as an author, as I do in personal terms for her as a woman, as a human being. I personally aspire to be even half as eloquent as her, and hope to be even a quarter as capable of deep, meaningful analysis in my life.
This work will take time to read, it will take energy and it will take a lot of patience to truly understand what it is laying out in front of you. However, I can safely say that, up to this point in my historical readings on the subject, this is by far the best one out there.
December 13, 2021
The Origins of Totalitarianism is probably the most challenging book I've read in recent years. I am glad I've done it, even though I can only say I truly understand some of her analysis and arguments. This 500+ pages' door stopper contains three parts:
Part 1: the origin of anti-semitism and Jewish identity. Comprehensive and nuanced, it is eye-opening to me. The relationship between religious persecution and anti-semitisim, the origin of Jewish conspiracy theories, the elite Jews’ exceptionalism, Rothchild family and the European Jewish financiers, the Dreyfus Affair, Benjamin Disraeli and many more.
Part 2: the origin of racism: political history and analysis from the 19th century up to the first world war - Nationalism, and later pan-movements (Pan-German and Pan-Slavism), Eugenics (scientific racism), and Colonialism. I find it the driest, hardest part, but it's also important, as Arendt built many of her arguments in Part 3 upon the analysis in Part 2.
Part 3: totalitarianism movement: political history and analysis from the end of the first world war to the end of the second world war. Two forms of totalitarianism are analyzed: racism (Hitler) and communism (Stalin, only a brief sentence about China). Again, to understand it fully, one needs to read a lot of background materials. The conclusion chapter (chapter 13) is the mostly insightful:
"Although racism and communism have become decisive ideologies of the 20th century, they were not in principle any more totalitarian than others. It happened because the elements of experiences in which they were originally based (the struggle between races for world domination, and the struggle between the classes for political powers in respective countries) turned out to be politically more important than other ideologies. In this sense, the ideological victory of racism and communism over all other ‘isms’ was decided before the totalitarian movement took hold of precisely these ideologies. On the other hand, all idology contains totalitarian elements, but these are fully developed only by totalitarian movements. This creates a deceptive impression that only racism and communism are totalitarian in character. The truth is, rather, the real nature of all ideologies was revealed only in the role that ideology plays in the apparatus of totalitarian domination. "
She then summarized three specifically totalitarian elements that are peculiar to all ideological thinking:
1) A claim to a total explanation. "the claim to total explanation promises to explain all historical happenings, the total explanation of the past, the present and a reliable prediction of the future."
2) Ideological thinking becomes independent of all experience from which it cannot learn anything new. “Ideological thinking becomes emancipated from the reality that we perceive with our five senses, and insists on a ‘truer’ reality concealed behind all perceptible things, dominating them from this place of concealment and requiring a "sixth" sense that enables us to become aware of it. The ‘sixth’ sense is provided by precisely the ideology, that particular indoctrination which is taught by educational institution established exclusively for this purpose to train the political soldiers..”
3) A peculiar “logic” is formed for this kind of ideological thinking. "Ideological thinking orders facts into an absolutely logical procedure which starts from an axiomatically accepted premise, deducing everything else from it; that is, it proceeds with a consistency that exists nowhere in the realm of reality." She also says: "As terror is needed lest with the birth of each new human being a new beginning arise and raise its voice in the world, so the self-coercive force of logicality is mobilized lest anybody ever start thinking - which is the freest and purest of all human activities is the very opposite of the compulsory process of deduction."
It is depressing to notice that a book about Totalitarianism is still relevant today.
Part 1: the origin of anti-semitism and Jewish identity. Comprehensive and nuanced, it is eye-opening to me. The relationship between religious persecution and anti-semitisim, the origin of Jewish conspiracy theories, the elite Jews’ exceptionalism, Rothchild family and the European Jewish financiers, the Dreyfus Affair, Benjamin Disraeli and many more.
Part 2: the origin of racism: political history and analysis from the 19th century up to the first world war - Nationalism, and later pan-movements (Pan-German and Pan-Slavism), Eugenics (scientific racism), and Colonialism. I find it the driest, hardest part, but it's also important, as Arendt built many of her arguments in Part 3 upon the analysis in Part 2.
Part 3: totalitarianism movement: political history and analysis from the end of the first world war to the end of the second world war. Two forms of totalitarianism are analyzed: racism (Hitler) and communism (Stalin, only a brief sentence about China). Again, to understand it fully, one needs to read a lot of background materials. The conclusion chapter (chapter 13) is the mostly insightful:
"Although racism and communism have become decisive ideologies of the 20th century, they were not in principle any more totalitarian than others. It happened because the elements of experiences in which they were originally based (the struggle between races for world domination, and the struggle between the classes for political powers in respective countries) turned out to be politically more important than other ideologies. In this sense, the ideological victory of racism and communism over all other ‘isms’ was decided before the totalitarian movement took hold of precisely these ideologies. On the other hand, all idology contains totalitarian elements, but these are fully developed only by totalitarian movements. This creates a deceptive impression that only racism and communism are totalitarian in character. The truth is, rather, the real nature of all ideologies was revealed only in the role that ideology plays in the apparatus of totalitarian domination. "
She then summarized three specifically totalitarian elements that are peculiar to all ideological thinking:
1) A claim to a total explanation. "the claim to total explanation promises to explain all historical happenings, the total explanation of the past, the present and a reliable prediction of the future."
2) Ideological thinking becomes independent of all experience from which it cannot learn anything new. “Ideological thinking becomes emancipated from the reality that we perceive with our five senses, and insists on a ‘truer’ reality concealed behind all perceptible things, dominating them from this place of concealment and requiring a "sixth" sense that enables us to become aware of it. The ‘sixth’ sense is provided by precisely the ideology, that particular indoctrination which is taught by educational institution established exclusively for this purpose to train the political soldiers..”
3) A peculiar “logic” is formed for this kind of ideological thinking. "Ideological thinking orders facts into an absolutely logical procedure which starts from an axiomatically accepted premise, deducing everything else from it; that is, it proceeds with a consistency that exists nowhere in the realm of reality." She also says: "As terror is needed lest with the birth of each new human being a new beginning arise and raise its voice in the world, so the self-coercive force of logicality is mobilized lest anybody ever start thinking - which is the freest and purest of all human activities is the very opposite of the compulsory process of deduction."
It is depressing to notice that a book about Totalitarianism is still relevant today.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,171 reviews