textfiles-politics/pre-src-xml/totalism.xml

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<div class="article">
   <p>TOTALITARIANISM </p>
   <p>by Chip Berlet</p>
   <p>(adapted from a forthcoming book)</p>
   <p>Totalitarianism is a zealous form of political
organization new to this century's mass
society. The style, strategies,
tactics, and internal organizing practices of the
totalitarian group were outlined by
historian-philosopher Hannah Arendt in her book
The Origins of Totalitarianism. </p>
   <p>In recent years there has been a revisionist
interpretation of Arendt's work, linking nazism
and communism as two sides of the same political
coin, or claiming that all communist or Marxist
movements are totalitarian, or that only Nazi and
communist ideologies can become totalitarian.
Arendt specifically repudiates this simplistic
interpretation of her work when she writes
"...ideologies of the nineteenth century are not
in themselves totalitarian," and that although
fascism and communism became "the decisive
ideologies of the twentieth century they were
not, in principle, any 'more totalitarian' than
others." According to Arendt, the ideological
victory of fascism and communism over other
twentieth century belief structures was "decided
before the totalitarian movements took hold of
precisely these ideologies" as a vehicle for
seizing and holding state power. </p>
   <p>Under totalitarianism there is strict control of
all aspects of the life of the individual in the
group through the use of coericive measures,
physical or emotional. </p>
   <p>The allure of undeniably efficient and expedient
totalitarianism is what Stalin succumbed to in
his rush to create a socialist society. Not
totalitarianism as defined by cyncial
philosophical revisionists such as Jeane
Kirkpatrick and Henry Kissinger, but
totalitarianism in the original definition as an
organizational form characterised by centralized
control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy. </p>
   <p>Totalitarian groups are characterised by
centralized control by an autocratic leader and
surrounding hierarchy. </p>
   <p>Totalitarianism has left its mark on this
century--and the vast majority of progressives
around the world have learned an important lesson
from the disasterous consequences, and have
rejected the siren call of totalitarianism which
infected both Hitler and Stalin in their zealous
rush to power. Some elements of the NAP's
methodology and style mirror the early stages of
several European fascist movements in the 1930's. </p>
   <p>Totalitarian movements historically have shared a
number of similarites: </p>
   <p>*** A methodological link between the
psychological and the political which forms both
a theoretical world-view and a justification for
indoctrinating members in an effort to create a
new consciousness through a unique and exclusive
technique understood only by the group's leaders. </p>
   <p>*** Psychologically coercive techniques to
manipulate members' views and actions. </p>
   <p>*** Attempts to establish hegemonic relationships
with other similar political groups, and, failing
that, attempts to undermine the group and
establish parallel organizations. </p>
   <p>*** Virulent and unprincipled attacks on critics,
including insults, agent-baiting, threats by
attorneys and defamation lawsuits. </p>
   <p>*** Re-writing of the group's political and
organizational history to meet current needs. </p>
   <p>*** A closed and covert hierarchical internal
structure that is not necessarily congruent with
the public organizational structure. </p>
   <p>*** Differentiation between internal in-group and
external out-group reality, use of propoganda,
and implementation of a "secret-society" style. </p>
   <p>These similarities do not change the fact that
the totalitarian LaRouchite philosophy is
apparently neo-fascist while the totalitarian
Newman and Parente philosophies are apparently
left-progressive, but it does mean that
internally, all these groups have an
authoritarian hierarchy whose existence is
denied, they rely on psychologically-manipulative
practices to control core members. These
political groups match a cult paradigm and are
far from democratic, despite outward claims and
appearances. </p>
   <p>The propaganda and organizing techniques used by
the internally-authoritarian and
psychologically-manipulative cult groups run by
Lyndon LaRouche, Fred Newman, and Geno Parente
(and others) mirror totalitarianism. </p>
   <p>It is crucial to note the relationship of
LaRouche, Parente, and Newman during the early
1970's in light of their subsequent activities.
All three white male political leaders viewed
Marxist revolution through an egocentric prism
which pre-supposed the centrality of one special
individual's will in shaping history. All three
used psychologically manipulative techniques to
enforce obedience in the institutions they have
built--institutions which sought political
hegemony over other groups. All three groups
share many elements of the a totalitarian
movement which is correctly defined by its style,
structure and methods not by its stated or
apparent ideology. </p>
   <p>Arendt's theories were first published in the
1950's, long before people like LaRouche, Newman
and Parente arrived on the political scene, yet
her analysis reads as if it were a study of the
Executive Committee of the National Caucus of
Labor Committees (the secret core leadership of
the LaRouche network), the International Workers
Party (the secret core leadership of the New
Alliance Party, the Rainbow Lobby and the
Institutes for Social Therapy), and the Communist
Party (Provisional) (the secret core leadership
of the National Labor Federation and its related
fronts, the Eastern Service Workers, California
Homemakers, etc.). </p>
   <p>Arendt discusses how totalitarian movements are
built around a central fiction of a powerful
conspiracy, (in the case of the Nazis, a
conspiracy of Jews which dominates the world,)
that requires a secretive counter-conspiracy be
organized. Totalitarian groups organize the
counter-conspiracy in a hierarchical manner which
mimics the levels of membership and rituals of
social and religious secret societies. </p>
   <p>According to Arendt, most people get their first
glimpse of a totalitarian movement through its
front organizations: </p>
   <p>"Sympathisers, who are to all appearances still
innocuous fellow citizens in a nontotalitarian
society, can hardly be called single-minded
fanatics; through them, the movements make their
lies more generally acceptable, can spread their
propaganda in milder, more respectable forms,
until the whole atmosphere is poisoned with
totalitarian elements which are hardly
recognizable as such but appear to be normal
political reactions or opinions." (p. 367) </p>
   <p>LaRouche, Newman and Parente have spawned dozens
of front organizations, each designed around some
issue of mass appeal. For instance, LaRouche
followers used the front device of Proposition 64
in California to take a generalized fear over the
spread of AIDS and steer it towards an acceptance
of authoritarian methods such as quarantine
isolation of suspected carriers and job
discrimination. </p>
   <p>Arendt also explains that different
constituencies react to propaganda messages from
totalitarian groups in different ways: </p>
   <p>"The whole hierarchical structure of
totalitarian movements, from naive
fellow-travellers to party members, elite
formations, and the intimate circle around the
Leader, and the Leader himself, could be
described in terms of a curiously varying mixture
of gullibility and cynicism with which each
member, depending upon his rank and standing in
the movement, is expected to react to the
changing lying statements of the leaders and the
central unchanging ideological fiction of the
movement." (p. 382) </p>
   <p>Arendt explains that average members of
totalitarian groups need not believe all the
statements made for public consumption, but they
do believe "all the more fervently the standard
cliches of ideological explanation." (p. 384) If
a lie is detected by the mass of people or even
the average member, it is dismissed as having
been a tactical necessity which only further
proves the cunning and wisdom of the leader. </p>
   <p>For the elite members, even the basic ideological
explanations of the group are not necessarily
believed, but are seen as "fabricated to answer a
quest for truth" among the lower ranking
followers. For the elite, facts are immaterial.
Their loyalty is to the leader who embodies
truth, and they require neither demonstration nor
explanation of the leader's assertions: </p>
   <p>"Their superiority consists in their ability to
dissolve every statement of fact into a
declaration of purpose. In distinction to the
mass membership which, for instance, needs some
demonstration of the inferiority of the Jewish
race before it can safely be asked to kill Jews,
the elite formations understand that the
statement, all Jews are inferior, means, all Jews
should be killed." (p. 385) </p>
   <p>At the top is "the intimate circle around the
Leader" for whom all statements are "mere devices
to organize the masses, and they feel no
compunction about changing them according to the
needs of circumstances." (p. 385) </p>
   <p>The ultimate goal of a totalitarian movement, of
course, is to propel the totalitarian leader
toward total, ruthless, world domination.
Political issues and positions are transitory
tactical tools that move the organization and its
leader toward power. Historically, when power is
attained, the political allies and issues are
betrayed. </p>
   <p>Leninist Democratic Centralism + totalitarianism = Stalinism </p>
   <p>Hitlerian Ultra-Racialist Fascism + totalitarianism = Nazism

</p>
</div>