Totalitarianism: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 132:

The city of Geneva under [[John Calvin]]'s leadership has also been characterised as totalitarian by scholars.<ref name="Bernholz 2017 p. 33">{{cite book | last=Bernholz | first=P. | title=Totalitarianism, Terrorism and Supreme Values: History and Theory | publisher=Springer International Publishing | series=Studies in Public Choice | year=2017 | isbn=978-3-319-56907-9 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dyYmDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA33 | access-date=2023-02-28 | page=33}}</ref><ref name="Congleton Grofman Voigt 2018 p. 860">{{cite book | last1=Congleton | first1=R.D. | last2=Grofman | first2=B.N. | last3=Voigt | first3=S. | title=The Oxford Handbook of Public Choice, Volume 1 | publisher=Oxford University Press | series=Oxford Handbooks | year=2018 | isbn=978-0-19-046974-0 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wLh9DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA860 | access-date=2023-02-28 | page=860}}</ref><ref name="Maier Schäfer 2007 p. 264">{{cite book | last1=Maier | first1=H. | last2=Schäfer | first2=M. | title=Totalitarianism and Political Religions, Volume II: Concepts for the Comparison Of Dictatorships | publisher=Taylor & Francis | series=Totalitarianism Movements and Political Religions | year=2007 | isbn=978-1-134-06346-8 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=L4d8AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA264 | access-date=2023-02-28 | page=264}}</ref>

===Revisionist school of Soviet-period history===

;Soviet society after Stalin

SomeThe recent historiansdeath of theStalin Soviet Unionin now1953 considervoided the conceptsimplistic of''totalitarian totalitarianism to be an oversimplification that does not accurately reflect the realitymodel'' of life in the Sovietpolice-state Union. The idea was first challenged by a generation of historians who came to prominence in the 1970s, and whose perspectives came to be knownUSSR as the "revisionist school". Someepitome of whose''the moretotalitarian prominent members were [[Sheila Fitzpatrick]], [[J. Arch Getty]], [[Jerry F. Hough]], William McCagg, and [[Robert W. Thurston]]state''.<ref name="Laqueur, Walter pages 225-227">{{cite book |last=Laqueur |first=Walter |author-link=Walter Laqueur |date=1987 |title=The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet History from 1917 to the Present |location=New York |publisher=Scribner's |pages=225–227 |isbn=978-0684189031}}</ref> AlthoughA theirfact individualcommon interpretations differ,to the revisionistsrevisionist-school sayinterpretations thatof the [[History of the Soviet Union (1927–1953)|Sovietreign Union under Josephof Stalin]] (1927–1953) was inthat manythe waysUSSR institutionallywas a country with weak social institutions, and that terror[[state reflectedterrorism]] theagainst weaknessesSoviet rathercitizens thanindicated the strengthspolitical illegitimacy of theStalin's Soviet stategovernment.<ref name="Laqueur, Walter pages 225-227"/> TheyThat arguethe thatcitizens Sovietof citizensthe USSR were not totally devoid of [[Agency (sociology)|personal agency]] or resourcesof andmaterial atomisedresources byfor ideologyliving, asnor thewere totalitarianSoviet perspectivecitizens implies.[[Social Rather,alienation|psychologically theyatomised]] successfullyby developedthe practicestotalist thatideology helpedof themthe toCommunist navigate everyday life at a timeParty of considerablethe dangerSoviet and multiple shortages.Union<ref name="Fitzpatrick 1999">{{cite book |last=Fitzpatrick |first=Sheila |author-link=Sheila Fitzpatrick |date=1999 |title=[[Everyday Stalinism|Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times: Soviet Russia in the 1930s]] |location=New York |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0195050004}}</ref> For— example,because Arch Getty claims that "the“the Soviet political system was chaotic, that [[Bureaucracy|institutions]] often escaped the control of the centre, and that Stalin’s leadership consisted, to a considerable extent, in responding, on an ''ad hoc'' basis, to political crises as they arose."”<ref>{{cite book|last1=Davies|first1=Sarah|last2=Harris|first2=James|title=Stalin: A New History|chapter=Joseph Stalin: Power and Ideas|date=8 September 2005|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1-139-44663-1|pages=4–5}}</ref> InThat addition,the scholars[[legitimacy such(political)|legitimacy]] asof FitzpatrickStalin’s haverégime stressed that theof regimegovernment relied onupon the popular support forof the Soviet legitimationcitizenry as much as itStalin didrelied onupon terrorstate terrorism for their support. ByThat by politically purging Soviet society of groupsanti–Soviet deemedpeople 'anti-Soviet',Stalin newcreated jobemployment opportunitiesand openedupward up[[social mobility]] for anthe entirepost–War cohortgeneration of young, [[working class]] citizens, whofor sawwhom dramatic,such upwardsocio-economic socialprogress mobilitywas thatunavailable theybefore couldthe scarcely[[Russian haveRevolution]] dreamed(1917–1924). of beforeThat the revolution.people Thesewho "beneficiaries"benefited offrom theStalin's violencesocial engineering became fiercely[[Stalinism|Stalinists]] loyal to Stalin and the SovietUSSR; regime. To themthus, it appeared the promise of the revolutionRevolution had been fulfilled. Theyher became willingpromise to defendthose Stalinist citizens and supportthey supported Stalin not in spitebecause of terror,the but because ofstate itterrorism.<ref name="Fitzpatrick 1999"/>

;German Democratic Republic (GDR)

In the case of [[East Germany]], (0000) Eli Rubin posited that East Germany was not a totalitarian state but rather a society shaped by the confluence of unique economic and political circumstances interacting with the concerns of ordinary citizens.<ref>{{cite book |last=Rubin |first=Eli |date=2008 |title=Synthetic Socialism: Plastics & Dictatorship in the German Democratic Republic |location=Chapel Hill |publisher=University of North Carolina Press |isbn=978-1469606774}}</ref>

Writing in 1987, [[Walter Laqueur]] posited that the revisionists in the field of Soviet history were guilty of confusing popularity with morality and of making highly embarrassing and not very convincing arguments against the concept of the Soviet Union as a totalitarian state.<ref name="Laqueur, Walter p. 228">{{cite book |last=Laqueur |first=Walter |author-link=Walter Laqueur |date=1987 |title=The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet History from 1917 to the Present |location=New York |publisher=Scribner's |page=228 |isbn=978-0684189031}}</ref> Laqueur stated that the revisionists' arguments with regard to Soviet history were highly similar to the arguments made by [[Ernst Nolte]] regarding German history.<ref name="Laqueur, Walter p. 228"/> For Laqueur, concepts such as modernisation were inadequate tools for explaining Soviet history while totalitarianism was not.<ref>{{cite book |last=Laqueur |first=Walter |author-link=Walter Laqueur |date=1987 |title=The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet History from 1917 to the Present |location=New York |publisher=Scribner's |page=233 |isbn=978-0684189031}}</ref> Laqueur's argument has been criticised by modern "revisionist school" historians such as [[Paul Buhle]], who said that Laqueur wrongly equates Cold War revisionism with the German revisionism; the latter reflected a "revanchist, military-minded conservative nationalism."<ref>{{cite book |last1=Buhle |first1=Paul |author-link1=Paul Buhle |last2=Rice-Maximin |first2=Edward Francis |date=1995 |title=William Appleman Williams: The Tragedy of Empire |publisher=Psychology Press |page=192 |isbn=0349120560}}</ref> Moreover, [[Michael Parenti]] and [[James Petras]] have suggested that the totalitarianism concept has been politically employed and used for anti-communist purposes. Parenti has also analysed how "left anti-communists" attacked the Soviet Union during the Cold War.<ref>{{cite book |last=Parenti |first=Michael |author-link=Michael Parenti |date=1997 |title=Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism |location=San Francisco |publisher=City Lights Books |pages=41–58 |isbn=978-0872863293}}</ref> For Petras, the [[Central Intelligence Agency|CIA]] funded the [[Congress for Cultural Freedom]] in order to attack "Stalinist anti-totalitarianism."<ref>{{cite journal |last=Petras |first=James |author-link=James Petras |date=November 1, 1999 |title=The CIA and the Cultural Cold War Revisited |url=https://monthlyreview.org/1999/11/01/the-cia-and-the-cultural-cold-war-revisited/ |url-status=live |journal=[[Monthly Review]] |volume=51 |issue=6 |page=47 |doi=10.14452/MR-051-06-1999-10_4 |access-date=June 19, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210516153420/https://monthlyreview.org/1999/11/01/the-cia-and-the-cultural-cold-war-revisited/ |archive-date=May 16, 2021}}</ref> Into the 21st century, [[Enzo Traverso]] has attacked the creators of the concept of totalitarianism as having invented it to designate the enemies of the West.<ref>{{cite book |last=Traverso |first=Enzo |author-link=Enzo Traverso |date=2001 |title=Le Totalitarisme: Le XXe siècle en débat |trans-title=Totalitarianism: The 20th Century in Debate |publisher=Poche |isbn=978-2020378574 |language=fr}}</ref>