What is Totalitarianism? | Hannah Arendt | Keyword
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.ค. 2024
- In this episode, I present Hannah Arendt's approach to Totalitarianism.
If you want to support me, you can do that with these links:
Patreon: / theoryandphilosophy
paypal.me/theoryphilosophy
Twitter: @DavidGuignion
IG: @theory_and_philosophy
Podbean: theoretician.podbean.com/
![เกิดใหม่ทั้งทีก็เป็นสไลม์ไปซะแล้ว ซีซั่น 3 - ตอนที่ 62 [ซับไทย]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/fsIY2fKn38Y/mqdefault.jpg)
I enjoy the fact that I am finding myself disagreeing with certain parts of what you say, but because you are presenting yourself and your perspective, along with the information, in a calm friendly manner, it makes me consider it more seriously; and nonetheless even in not agreeing all the time, I still enjoy tuning in to your content. So thank you for being that calm friendly voice in a world filled with inflammatory voices
I would not misconstrue what he says with what he believes. He is directing you towards a particular perspective. In this case, Hannah Arendt's.
@@nicolashoward5481 ...Well, technically, he IS explaining what HE believes. He's presenting what he believes Arendt's message to be...or his interpretation of Arendt - which may or may not be accurate. A perceived lack of accuracy in the interpretation of Arendt's work may be what the commenter was referring to.
Yes he is a victim of new age education.
@@thinkinoutloud.1 That sounds a lot dismissive... or worse, and attempt to discredit anything he presents.... have you seen a lot of his videos?
The main issue you excluded was 'Party" which Arendt mentions over 600 times in Origins. The relation between Party and totalitarian movements and totalitarian governments is crucial to understanding this political problem. Koestler 1940 "Darkness at Noon" discusses at length through his main character, Rubashov, the relation of the party as "objective" to the members as subjects, as subjective opinions. Arendt picks up on this thematic ten years later. Shirer has documented German or Nazi totalitarianism in "The Rise and Fall of the Nazi Movement," 1962; recommend the chapter on "The New Order." The main gist of my comment here is that personality looms large as the main ingredient in these single parties. Fromm would agree in his "Anatomy of Human Destructiveness," 1973, where he presents psychological profiles of the nazi leaders. The main thing I want to suggest is that the role of Party, of 'one-party,' is the key factor in totalitarian movements, similar to theocracies.
Can be also extended to exporting democracy in cynical ways under the guise of values, freedom and human rights (again as seen in the Russia example or any US invasion namely war on terror with its framing Muslims as a whole as the enemy). Imo, it is just an endless loop of imperial expansion justified through nationalism while other factors such as state survival and accumulation of power being the real drivers.
We are observig Arendt's idea in our language class by studying an excerpt titled 'men in dark times', which by the way is accurately portrayed here. But what got my thought racing was when my professor investigated the very idea of 'inner emigration' and how the same STATE side individuals of a region emmigrated into their mental, physical and public psyches when the so called NATIONAL idea confirmed an erasure to their existence, while the NATION forces both sides to silence using Repressive and ideological state apparatus, it is not the very people on either side that have the opinion or say, but the state machinery that decides and occupies this idea of the NATION over the state, in a way where one is forced is keep silence on justice being mishandles, the other part is forced to be quiet under hands of the injustice, great video and explanation !!
I don't think you got anything wrong or excluded it, but I confess to a great deal of struggle with Arendt's work, particularly on the structure of "totalitarianism", which feels very infected with liberalism and its ideological shortcomings, as well a fundamental misunderstanding of how the USSR became what it became (not to exculpate the USSR for what it became, but rather that by misidentifying the causes, she creates the risk of recreating the same problems). The lack of any kind of materialism in much of her analysis is very striking.
In particular I take issue with:
- The unjustified assertion that the removal of class boundaries must result in the decay of the state. The whole purpose of the dictatorship of the proletariat in that it makes _everyone_ proletarian. One of the key problems in the early USSR was that it _couldn't_ make everyone proletarian because its level of development was all wrong for that. It was a nation of peasants governed by a group of intellectuals who believed they were governing on behalf of a tiny proletariat.
- Treating colonialism as a matter of national pride is just bizarre. Sure, it was ideologically justified that way, but colonialism was about the extraction of what accounts today as trillions of dollars of wealth. It had obvious material causes. Heck, it even started in part because of the fact that pre-colonial Europe was playing hot-potato with debts it couldn't pay. Correction: I should note that she does acknowledge the economic drive, she just attributes to a 'scientific racism' as ideology what is better described as the obvious justification of imperial banditry and its bureaucratic racism.
- I think she kind of paints over the ways in which Ashkenazi Jews had been driven west by the practices of the Russian Empire and the long history of pogroms they suffered long before Totalitarianism was a word on anyone's lips. And, again, we can trace the specific preferred conspiracy theories of the Nazis back to the Akrona and the Russian Empire's reactionaries. There seems to be more alignment between "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality" than between the USSR and the Nazis.
- She also ignores the key difference between the USSR and Nazi Germany: Nazi Germany's conspiracy theory was utter bunk. The USSR's enemies on the horizon were very real, from the White Army to the capitalist powers of Europe and the US, and particularly the Nazis. Yes, that was then used to justify the persecution of people who in no were involved in those enemies, but the enemies really did exist. The international Jewish cabal? Yeah, that was fake through and through.
- She also fails to identify the real driving forces that create the USSR: Its internal contradictions (nation of peasants with a party trying to make a dictatorship of the proletariat), the fundamental horror of industrialization (which sucked _everywhere_ , but sucked particularly in the USSR, where it was speed-run via truly boneheaded policies), and the ways in which the Russian Civil War created a political apparatus that could never be made to work in any kind of Soviet Democracy because of the primacy of the politburo and orgburo (which also guaranteed that a small clique of party elders would always have the most power and the incentives to preserve it).
On the other hand, I think her dialog on the "state giving rights to the 'wrong people'" is a good insight into fascism, and offers an important lens into the dialog on "freedom" among American fascist organizations. She offers a cogent explanation about how groups like the Proud Boys can obsess over "freedom" and still be fascists.
I liked your insight. This oligarchic tradition of Russia can still be seen in all her conflicts
I have to wonder what you read in Origins of Totalitarianism because Arendt spends tens of pages on the issue of class, specifically, in the distinction between class relations to other other class, and class relations to the State which offers protection and privileges to special groups. She mentions "Class" over 220 times! Also, your comments do not reflect the very different situations in Russia and in Germany although each underwent a social revolution, 1917 and 1919 respectively. I suggest rereading parts of the text that address the class situation of Jews in Russia and in Germany to understand why both nations engaged in mass genocide against Jews and other "classless" groups, called ethnos. (see Snyder, T 2010 "Bloodlands")
Your mentioning of liberalism looks like a non sequitur. Both totalitarian movements objected to liberalism, that is, to rights, freedom, and rule by law.
Thank you, great to listen to.
Great video. Thank you
Thank you so much for your videos they are so helpful in getting through the tougher concepts of my sociology degree!
Freedom convoy would be based if it weren't made up of petty Bourgeoisie
Also at 14:50 there's a better analysis of Russias reasoning for their operation
Thank you, very informative.
Many false analogies here. Comparing Canadian truckers' protests to Nazism (which he said he doesn't do but does) is a false analogy. Truckers were protesting that certain rights given to citizens were being taken away from citizens without due process, coming down from the government as though through a dictatorship. And it's fabrication to pretend that nationalism has anything to do with totalitarianism. The "nationalism" of the Allies fought against Germany. Basically, nationalism made people aware that they didn't want to lose their rights, which would have happened if Germany had won WWII. This is something Leftist with bad intent are pushing to encourage citizens to believe their Western nations are bad (as though pretty much every other nation's citizens aren't also nationalistic) and that you should not love what the laws of your nation represent or that you should preserve those laws that protect your human rights. This overturning of rights was precisely what Canadian truckers, as mentioned above, were protesting against. And no, it wasn't violent. Thoughtless, false analogies are dangerous. Extremely dangerous.
😂
@@TheoryPhilosophy I don't use Twitter or any related app
You raise key points. Many allowed themselves to be fooled by, literally, a false flag, when the media focused intense scrutiny on a single protester bearing a nazi flag-as if that flag represented the values of the entire assembly-shifting the narrative away from the convoy’s actual demands.
Fascinating that you respond to the freedom convoy as part of totalitarian mentality, as opposed to the PM shutting down their bank accounts, drafting protest laws, and diving into social media laws and beyond. Everything we heard was that these individuals were tyrannical going against the national cause. Eh, always interesting when you include commentary on new events.
I'm happy you liked it 🙂
It’s sad that Theory of Philosophy doesn’t engage with you and others who raise similar points at the level of civic discourse. A fact-based conversation might uncover important ideas behind the conflicting views. Avoidance of such a conversation suggests a lack of substance here.
Fascism really started with the crusades of the middle-ages. Wherein war became sacred and holy, rather than some unfortunate but necessary endeavor. Or else in antiquity, wherein war was just an exorcise in unashamed plunder and nihilism. E.G. the Romans never claimed they were on some sacred mission, making no secret of their rapacious intentions.
In fact you could say fascism was just a crusade with the sacred nation replacing god. As with most reactionary vanguards - the crusades play a key totemic role. With fascists styling themselves as knights - the templar, esoteric rites of the KKK, or the round tables of the Rhodes society, or Himmler's Wewelsburg castle, wherein the masters of the SS were going to drink of the grail, while no doubt planning some mass genocide of non-Aryans.
The sacred war being against communism rather than Islam, for the race, rather than the faith. But essentially the same mystification of war and sacrifice we saw in the Crusades, with the traditional victims of religious authorities targeted - homosexuals, atheists and Jews, as religious elements were co-opted to the mass slaughter. Wherein Christian hatreds of communists, homosexuals and Jews segued with the racism, homophobia and anti-communism of hard-line nationalists.
Basically the atrocities once carried out in the name of religion, morphed into fascism and nationalism. But even so, as we see with Putin, Trump, Le Penn, Oban - religion is still always in the background, still demonstrating its connection to hard-line reactionary politics.
ok thanks
So you're sort of implying that the Nazi-racial totalitarianism was a synthetic adaptation to allow imperialist expansion to neighboring countries?
The other way around. At least, according to Arendt.
@@TheoryPhilosophy Truly then, WWII was mostly a capitalist power struggle? Please do a video on original fascism as it was defined and implemented for Mussolini, maybe including modernism as well?
Actually anyone who was paying attention knows the Convoy stood on the side of policemen, nurses and anyone who lost their jobs due to the mandates. Totalitarianism in Germany was itself maintained through 12 years of states of emergency. This was how they became the only party in Germany. I do think scapegoating was an important factor as well as complete control of the media. I think your argument that Germany was stateless is misguided. Germany had a very strong state a very unified nationalistic collective that targeted the Jews and their property. There is this misguided notion in the West that Individual Rights and individualism is connected to Fascism. Rather, Individualism protects against mob collectivism. As do individual rights. Collective rights and the absence of individual rights are what lead to mob rule and totalitarianism.
Lol
@@TheoryPhilosophy Go ahead. I would love to hear your comments.
Was this comment underwritten by Jordan Peterson?
@@ananku2 Actually I see this more as a military industrial complex and hearts and minds project. The problem of technocracy and rule by pharmaceutical companies as well as the rollout of the surveillance state in Canada has not been something that JP has addressed. The prototype for this phenomenon occurred during the DARPA H1N1 rollout.
The fact that he won’t take you in at the level of civil discourse reveals the paucity of understanding here, in this misconstruction and misapplication of Arendt’s thought.
The fact that this was your application of the totalitarianism concept (by one author) into current events sadly shows how reading philosophy doesn't necessarily make someone a better thinker and isn't necessarily useful to confront real problems. It is a bummer that you just eat the mainstream corporate narrative (or are afraid to speak against it, out of your preferred identity box) and develop such a superficial understanding of both convoy protests and the Ukraine conflict, thus becoming part of the useful mass in a corporate totalitarian neoliberal regime that is screwing us all, doing a good divide and conquer job.
I think you should elaborate!
I agree with xo xo. You are so calm and kind, but I think you have put Arendt into the erroneous left/right, liberal/conservative narrative that is going on right now and it's blinding your judgment from being objective. Thank you for your work on this.
forgot to answer. Giorgio Agamben i.e. is influenced by Hannah Arendt, in my opinion he is the most relevant, sober, valuable philosopher alive today and a true leftist in a traditional way. He has been following carefully the development of totalitarianism in the contemporary world, he has been involved in Italy in the resistance against the pass and mass vacs, there a movement across political spectrum and classes. It's only in anglo world were people, even educated people, have been so manipulated by media and political class to follow their manufactured left and right political boxes.
I've noticed how little attention anglo people tend to put on writers outside anglo ones. You have this gringo-centered view of the world. Really recommend the work by Agamben, recent one gives a very lucid critique of what's going on these days.
Also related are Invisible Committee, also Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt Empire. Then check the lobby that "leftist" politicians receive, stock market ownership in Yahoo finance, how the same top shareholders of media are of pharm4 and the m1l1tary industrial complex. Check the gr3at reset agenda actors, then the tons of evidence of how unsafe and negligent have been these new prophylaxis since it's development, etc.
Totally agree. If anyone thoughtlessly believes what this guy says, they would move closer to totalitarianism.
It’s so interesting how someone could do so well covering her book and have such a piss poor understanding of modern geo politics
Not trying to be mean but I don’t think he understands this book at all. I have a feeling he’s reading Wikipedia because even basic concepts seem to just whiz past him. The antisemitism section of the book and his “understanding” of it has led me to believe he’s just guessing.
Goodness. I will listen to this again but what you are stating appears to be a serious misunderstanding of the concept. Are you presenting Arendt's ideas or your own and your own agenda? The notion that the Canadian trucker convoy protest, itself, is a phenomenon signaling the rise of and desire for totalitarianism, a manifestation of it, and this should be concerning, and is foreshadowing for totalitarian history repeating itself, is bizarre.
I thought it made sense, he gave some reasons. But it's just an opinion, if you like the truckers keep liking them!
He hasn’t read it. There is no way someone reads that entire book and walks away with his understanding of it. It’s superficial because his concept of totalitarianism is from Rachel Maddow.
Totalitarianism is DN.
I was taking your video very seriously until you equated Russia's illegal and unprovoked war of annihilation of the Ukrainian state and its people to the defensive alliamce of NATO. Sorry, that's like saying interwar Poland had just as much of a blame for the outbreak of WWII as Nazi Germany.
Rather superficial commentary of Arendt’s analysis. Does not represent in any deep way what Arendt describes at totalitarianism.
Ukrane belongs to Russia.