After Stalin: Totalitarian or Authoritarian?

Bev, would you care to clarify? Because it seems quite obvious to me that an authoritarian state like Elizabeth Tudor's England or Alexander III's Russia was not totalitarian. In both these cases the state was not seeking to control virtually every aspect of its citizens' lives. In other words, I don't believe that authoritarianism and totalitarianism are synonymous. I do agree that there's often a degree (note, just a degree) of overlap, but still... it's hard to compare relatively open societies like the England of Shakespeare with the Germany of Leni Riefenstahl. 

. . . an authoritarian state like Elizabeth Tudor's England or Alexander III's Russia . . . .

Well, there are two names I had not expected to see mentioned this way in the same sentence.

It seems to me that Elizabeth ruled not an authoritarian state, but a divine right monarchy that was in the early-mid stages of evolving into a constitutional monarchy.  Elizabeth had the right to rule without Parliamentary input only as long as she could fund the activities of government with revenues from crown property.  When she needed subsidies -- an early form of national taxation -- she had to apply to Parliament for funds and meet their conditions to receive them.  While she had to summon Parliaments only 13 times in her 45-year reign, her rule was neverthless limited by her inability to impose taxation on her subjects.  (This was the reason she resorted so heavily to monopolies, which themselves brought her near a collision with Parliament in 1601.  Although Parliament acknowledged her right to grant monopolies, she avoided a confrontation that could have cost her that right only by a typically-Elizabethan dodge.)

And her reach was even less absolute in spiritual affairs, as the machinations around the Religious Settlement of 1559 illustrated.

On balance, I would argue that Elizabeth in 1600 was more constrained in the exercise of her power than Nicholas II was after the Revolution of 1905, which some argue (erroneously, in my view) created a constitutional monarchy in Russia.

Tsarfan, my point wasn't that Elizabeth I's England was as authoritarian as Alexander III's or even Nicholas II's Russia. My point was that there are degrees of authoritarianism, just as there are degrees of totalitarianism. Do I think Khrushchev's Soviet Union was as totalitarian as Stalin's? Obviously the answer is no. But was Khrushchev's Soviet Union also a manifestation of totalitarianism? Yes, IMHO.

Indeed, that is correct about Elizabeth I, and her way of governing. I think being totalitiarian and authoritarian are two different things, and that there is no overlap between them, except possibly a stage where one almost is becoming the other. An example of this would be the Soviet Union in later years, which was a totalitarian regime that was fragementing, to something else. There might be other examples of this as well. As for Russia being a constituational monarchy or not after 1905, I think not. Certainly, Nicholas had less power, but he still had a great deal of control, and it wasn't really constituational in any sense. There was too much power that was not defined anywhere, as to exactly where it belonged, for it to be a very neat form of goverment that fits in a category like constituational monarchy.

Elizabeth, I don't see it as a case of either/or.  You cannot have one without elements of the other, and while I appreciate Arendt's arguments, I don't believe that totalitarianism is a new phenomenon, peculiar to the industrial age.  In fact, I believe that totalitarianism is generally reactionary, and while it cloaks itself in the ideology of historical determinism what it really is, is acknowledgment that history cannot be determined and the only aspect of the future that can be controlled is fear (which of course is the weapon of choice in social control of all governments.) 

Arendt states that "totalitarianism is a uniquely repressive form of government which seeks to destroy the individual" which is based on the concept that the whole of society is greater than its parts.  So then how do we characterize Sparta?  If ever there was a totalitarian state, it was Sparta.  Which means of course, that totalitarianism is not  a new phenomenon at all, but in fact, a very old system of destroying the individual to promote the needs of the state.  So what then makes totalitarianism unique in all of history?  Arendt said that technology set it apart from all other forms of government, but technology is relevant only to time and place.  (And I won't get into her misunderstanding of Darwinism as a foundational stone in totaliarian ideology.)  IMO, totalitarianism is authoritarianism dressed up in a tux. 

But Bev, why do we have to stick so rigidly to Arendt's definition of totalitarianism? Most historians of the Soviet Union no longer do so. Arendt's model is considered groundbreaking, innovative, and still useful, but only with the appropriate modifications. Like most historical models, it's undergone some revisions since its author's death.

I for one still think it's necessary and useful to distinguish between authoritarian regimes and totalitarian ones. Sparta was very different from the Rome of Augustus. How else do you signify that difference, but by resorting to authoritarian and totalitarian schemata?

But my biggest problem with your definition is, that I don't believe all authoritarian regimes are totalitarian as well. Alexander III's Russia did not seek to "destroy the individual." On the contrary, the arts were flourishing during his reign and even those bodies of local government called the zemstvos, despite new legislation to curb their influence, were thriving. Now zemstvos are something that neither Stalin nor Khrushchev could have stomached!

I agree with you, Eliz.  It is useful to distinguish political ideologies, and auth./total. are as useful as any other terms.  However, I really find it difficult to separate the two, because both have elements of the other inherent in their philosophies.  Of course I bow to the wisdom of the great political philosophers and I understand their arguments supporting a qualitative difference between the two, (although I do object to any quantitative arguments) but in my own personal opinion, it is very much like the argument between nature and nurture.  Human beings are a combination of both, not one or the other. 

How can you have authoritarianism without elements of totalitarianism and vice versa?  Authoritarian and totalitarian governments both promote the military, both control the press, both use fear as a mechanism for social control, both embody the state as supreme and most importantly, both impose law rather than evolve laws based on consensus.  So what's left?  The quantity of their crimes? 

Yes, you're perfectly correct in your arguments, but for the life of me, I don't see what difference it makes if Stalin's secret police roust someone out of his bed in the middle of the night, or the tsar's secret police do it.  They're both a fundamental flouting of our basic human rights and the imposition of the state upon the individual.  Again, this is merely my personal opinion, but I see any government which is not a pure democracy as totalitarian, however, I'm well aware that human beings are unwilling to respect other people's boundaries, so government will always be a necessary evil.

I think it's all a question of scope, Bev. How invasive is the state in the lives of its subjects? To what extent does it seek to regulate all aspects of the individual's daily existence? To me a totalitarian state is different from an authoritarian one because, just to give one example, a totalitarian state attempts to invade even the sanctity of the family, encouraging children to denounce their own parents for crimes against the state. Thus the legend of Pavlik Morozov, which was drilled into Soviet schoolchildren for decades. This constitutes a total attempt to re-engineer the human soul (to rephrase Stalin's famous words about the role of writers in the new Soviet society).

  Again, this is merely my personal opinion, but I see any government which is not a pure democracy as totalitarian, however, I'm well aware that human beings are unwilling to respect other people's boundaries, so government will always be a necessary evil.

I, too, have problems with your equations. Totalitarianism is not the same as a "government which is not pure democracy" simply because totalitarianism by definition means that the state exerts a total control  over its people, that, as Elisabeth pointed out, it invades every part of people's existence, even the family as an example. According to your definition every single state/regime we now find in the world is a totalitarian system because there is no such thing as "pure democracy" because in any system the state exerts some degree of control.

Of course there is no such thing as pure democracy.  Which means that all governments exercise some level of control over its citizens.  Yes, there are degrees of control, and I certainly understand and respect Eliz's arguments, and I agree that we need definitions and labels to describe  governments.

Philosophically, however, I don't agree with Arendt's theory of totalitarianism as she defines it.  Frankly, I see it as a distinction without a difference.  Any government that controls the money supply, controls the populace.  Yes, there is needed control over money supply and demand, but any government that controls it, controls you, to some extent.  Benevolent governments also control information, just as tot. governments do - how many school children in the U.S. have had the George Washington legend drummed into their heads?  How many school children start the day with the Pledge of Allegiance?  (and I am NOT making any moral judgements now about any of these collective drills) 

So yes, philosophically, unless a government is purely democratic, it is in some measure totalitarian.  In practicallity though, Eliz. is perfectly correct, and I agree with her.

Of course there is no such thing as pure democracy.  Which means that all governments exercise some level of control over its citizens.  Yes, there are degrees of control, and I certainly understand and respect Eliz's arguments, and I agree that we need definitions and labels to describe  governments.

Philosophically, however, I don't agree with Arendt's theory of totalitarianism as she defines it.  Frankly, I see it as a distinction without a difference.  Any government that controls the money supply, controls the populace.  Yes, there is needed control over money supply and demand, but any government that controls it, controls you, to some extent.  Benevolent governments also control information, just as tot. governments do - how many school children in the U.S. have had the George Washington legend drummed into their heads?  How many school children start the day with the Pledge of Allegiance?  (and I am NOT making any moral judgements now about any of these collective drills) 

So yes, philosophically, unless a government is purely democratic, it is in some measure totalitarian.  In practicallity though, Eliz. is perfectly correct, and I agree with her.

Well, it pains me to say it, but I disagree with you, Bev. I think there is a philosophical difference between a government that encourages the children of its citizens to recite the pledge of allegiance in school, and a government which encourages its subjects' children to denounce their own parents for crimes against the state. The former government is not interfering with the sanctity of the family; the latter government is attempting to subvert the family unit all together. So even on a philosophical level, the two systems are diametrically opposed.

Also, remember that the Soviet government went far beyond mere encouragement; if an individual was arrested for crimes against the state, usually members of his family were arrested as well (the underlying message being: if a family was protecting a "dissident" in its midst, there would be hell to pay for everyone). Have you ever read Nina Lugovskaya's Diary of a Soviet Schoolgirl? Nina's father, the former Socialist Revolutionary Sergei Rybin-Lugovskoy, was hounded and persecuted by the Soviet state for years, being arrested, released, and subsequently forbidden to live in Moscow. In 1937, when Nina was 17 years old, the family's apartment was searched by the NKVD, who in the process of looking for incriminating papers against Rybin-Lugovskoy, discovered Nina's diary, in which she had expressed her hatred of Stalin. The result was that the entire family was arrested over the course of the next few months - Rybin-Lugovskoy, his wife, and all three of their daughters, including Nina. All were sentenced to the Gulag.

['philosophical systems']

Elizabeth,

This posting you have just posted strikes a very sad note inside me, as well my family, for the older generation surely went through what you are describing. My mother-in-law sat in a Stalinist prison as a young girl because of this; earlier my husband's father's own father was killed by Lenin plus some other members of the family, and my own father in an early white gulag as a teen. So, I know well what these very 'philosophical systems' are and are not. These situations of course were picked up later by the Nazis, and used on school children again to turn in their parents, and anyone opposing that glorified state.

It is one thing for many to talk about 'philosophical systems', and quite another to live through them, or to have survived at best.
It's hard enough to have survived anything, but to live with the long after-math of knowing you have turned in any family loved one is shattering. Sadly for many, it these are only a war if you will of words, which may or may not be peircing in being received. But, always, thank you so kindly for bringing up and on board these more than relevant points, for they are more than appreciated when one thinks of making sure we really understand what totalitariasm means.

Tatiana+

Eliz, I truly understand your argument, and I agree that practicallity demands that we differentiate between governments, because it is in the best interests of humans that they make value judgements in governance.  However, philosophically, yes, all governments exercise some degree of control over their citizens, and since control is a criterium for defining totalitarianism, then all governments are in some degree totalitarian.  Citizens may not recognize coercion, but it is there, nonetheless.  (That is why the Pledge of Alliegance is inherently unconstitutional - it is not only coercive, there is nothing in the constitution that requires citizens to take oaths of allegiance.)  Taxes are coercive.  Money supply and demand is coercive.  The threat in benevolent governments is existential, but it is still a mechanism for control of the populace.

Arendt's theory is that totalitarian government exercises total and complete control over its populace, but no government can exercise total and complete control over its populace.  There is always freedom of thought.  There is always freedom to choose - we may not like the consequences of our choice, but we still are free to make that choice.  Solzenhitzen is a perfect example of this - he was free to think the Soviet system was imperfect, and chose to make those thoughts known.  Totalitarian governments know that for most people the motive to co-operate is avoidance of pain, which is why punishment for non co-operation is so draconian.  Solzenhitzen understood that once he accepted that, then he was free from their control.  Paradoxically, we are only free if we understand that the price we pay for freedom is non-freedom.

and Tania, suffering isn't exclusive to totalitarianism and no one is claiming that the suffering wasn't real.  Human beings discuss philosophy because dialogue is necessary to impart information, acquire knowledge and search for truth.  If you want to participate, participate, but the veiled references, the stealthy barbs and the sneaking insults are getting old - and don't be disengenuous in reply, because you know exactly what I mean.

If Elizabeth would like me to withdraw, than I shall. I did not think that anyone had to participate under exactly what you are directing. I am not with veiled references, nor barbs, nor sneaking insults, and no, I don't know what you mean. If Elizabeth had stated how she wished participation to be, she certainly can state this. In any event, I tend to agree more so with Elizabeth's presentations. I consider her arguments are always, very solid.

Tatiana+

Oh, knock it off.