TOTALITARIANISM
by Chip Berlet
(adapted from a forthcoming book)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Totalitarian groups are characterised by centralized control by an autocratic leader and surrounding hierarchy.
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.
Totalitarian movements historically have shared a number of similarites:
*** 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.
*** Psychologically coercive techniques to manipulate members' views and actions.
*** Attempts to establish hegemonic relationships with other similar political groups, and, failing that, attempts to undermine the group and establish parallel organizations.
*** Virulent and unprincipled attacks on critics, including insults, agent-baiting, threats by attorneys and defamation lawsuits.
*** Re-writing of the group's political and organizational history to meet current needs.
*** A closed and covert hierarchical internal structure that is not necessarily congruent with the public organizational structure.
*** Differentiation between internal in-group and external out-group reality, use of propoganda, and implementation of a "secret-society" style.
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.
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.
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.
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.).
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.
According to Arendt, most people get their first glimpse of a totalitarian movement through its front organizations:
"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)
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.
Arendt also explains that different constituencies react to propaganda messages from totalitarian groups in different ways:
"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)
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.
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:
"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)
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)
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.
Leninist Democratic Centralism + totalitarianism = Stalinism
Hitlerian Ultra-Racialist Fascism + totalitarianism = Nazism