Inverted totalitarianism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

240 158 13 years ago

en.wikipedia.org

spindritf• 13 years ago

In the same vein, there's also anarcho-tyranny[1] coined by Samuel Francis

What we have in this country today, then, is both anarchy (the failure of the state to enforce the laws) and, at the same time, tyranny – the enforcement of laws by the state for oppressive purposes; the criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions, such as the family and local schools; the imposition of thought control through "sensitivity training" and multiculturalist curricula, "hate crime" laws, gun-control laws that punish or disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens but have no impact on violent criminals who get guns illegally, and a vast labyrinth of other measures. In a word, anarcho-tyranny.

which is sort of inverted authoritarianism.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_T._Francis#Anarcho-tyra...

rayiner12• 13 years ago

Sensitivity training as a totalitarian tool. I love it!

A lot of the people who complain about "totalitarianism" are simply ideological minorities who don't like the majoritarian consensus and seek to delegitimize it.

seanhandley• 13 years ago

Fascist!

jessaustin10• 13 years ago

...ideological minorities who don't like the majoritarian consensus and seek to delegitimize it.

What's wrong with that?

wissler• 13 years ago

"Laws are spider-webs, which catch the little flies, but cannot hold the big ones." -- Anarcharsis

salient• 13 years ago

Whereas in Nazi Germany the state dominated economic actors, in inverted totalitarianism, corporations through political contributions and lobbying, dominate the United States, with the government acting as the servant of large corporations. This is considered "normal" rather than corrupt

Indeed. As a non-American, I find it quite absurd that corporations can "donate money" to change a Congressman's opinion on a law, and then support them in Congress when passing new bills. As far as I know that's what bribing is pretty much anywhere else. So US has in effect legalized bribing, and almost everyone in US seems to think that's "normal" and okay, and that there's "little corruption" in US, when in fact the whole government wreaks of "legalized" corruption.

Does that happen in other countries, too? Sure. Bribing is everywhere. But at least we see it for what it is, and even if we don't catch them in the act, there can be investigations later, and have them arrested. Good luck doing that in US - ever.

thomasz• 13 years ago

Does that happen in other countries, too?

Yes. Donations from corporations are legal in nearly every country, in mine, in the USA, most likely also in yours. That's really nothing to bash america over.

bad_user• 13 years ago

True, but at least lobbying is transparent and there are rules to it. Those that donate money for an electoral campaign are required to make those donations without strings attached. Of course, there are always strings attached, that's implicit, but if somebody tries to coerce a politician into doing something, that's as illegal as bribery in other countries.

In functional democracies, making bribing illegal works, in theory at least, but in semi-functional democracies like the countries from Eastern Europe where oligarchies happen, dirty politicians are untouchable and mass media is owned by the rich that are part of the ruling parties. Basically, if a politician is bribed, at most you'll only hear rumours and nothing else will happen. And if some big-profile case does indeed happen, those involved will just keep a low profile until the public forgets about it and then you'll see them back in the next elections. There is no real opposition either. They fight against each other only on TV. Note that I was born and still living in Romania. It's not so bad here as I describe it, but not that far either.

The real underlying problem in every country is of course that the public is so freaking stupid, lacking long-term memory and being easily swayed by electoral alms.

threelettered2• 13 years ago

sounds like the USA.

praptak• 13 years ago

It is interesting that "make it legal or else we'll break the law and do it illegally at a greater cost to society" works for politicians and not for drug users.

Lazare5• 13 years ago

As a non-American, I find it quite absurd that corporations can "donate money" to change a Congressman's opinion on a law, and then support them in Congress when passing new bills.

Let's be clear: Under US law, a corporation cannot donate money to a candidate under any circumstance. They can, however, spend money independently of a candidate, for example, to produce newspaper or documentary, write and publish a book, hire a billboard, produce and air an ad, etc.

On the other hand, in Australia, Germany, the UK, corporations can make unlimited donations directly to politicians.

My, that does sound absurd.

(Really, I'm not sure what's worse: Your lack of understanding of how US law works, or your lack of understand of how non-US law works. You may understand how your local election laws work, but the world is a big place. Sweeping statements just make you look silly.)

bananacurve2• 13 years ago

He may look silly and be uninformed but he gets a lot of easy up votes.

threelettered2• 13 years ago

What about Citizens United? The US Supreme Court Jesters declared corporations ARE people expressly so they could make unlimited political contributions, saying it is "free speech". We live in a super fucking corrupt nation.

craftsman2• 13 years ago

I used to work for BigCorp which had a PAC. Each year they had a campaign to drum up contributions to the PAC. Officers of the company would send emails and make calls, letting everyone know how important it was to contribute to the PAC. The tactics were both carrot and stick. On one phone call I was told that it was important to donate because electing candidates favorable to the company "helped support all of our jobs". On the other hand, the company also would donate money to a charity of our choice for every dollar we gave to the PAC. So not only did they get the PAC funded, they also took a charitable contribution deduction.

The PAC donated certain sums of money to various candidates at the state and federal level each election cycle. Curious, I called the person who ran the PAC and asked how they chose the candidates. He replied simply, "We'll support anyone who will vote consistent with the interests of BigCorp."

And effectively, that's how corporations donate money to political candidates.

kazagistar• 13 years ago

Being wrong on uninformed about a particular subject is not a personal failing. Being wrong publicly is the first step to becoming right, and as a byproduct helps those who are wrong in the same way (often many) but not brave enough to speak. Criticizing and silencing people is only going to result in less informed people.

ama7292• 13 years ago

The US is also hardly a democracy, even if the politicians were perfect. The voting system of the US (and the UK too), is just horrendous.

The simple fact that in some cases less than 40 or 30% of the population can choose an election (if you don't believe me, look it up on youtube, CGP Grey made a video about it), show it's hard to take seriously the claim that the US is a democracy.

digitalengineer3• 13 years ago

Well in my western european country I can not even directly choose a president, major, sheriff, or local representative. I'd say the us is 't so bad...

maaaats• 13 years ago

Sheriff, as in head of police? Why should he or she be chosen by the public? That seems like a big, red flag to me. In my "western european country" they are selected as you would hire a boss to a company, and they hold no "political power", they should do what the government has chosen (as a boss would follow the order of the board/owners).

weavejester• 13 years ago

You can't choose a local representative? Which western european country do you live in?

calibraxis• 13 years ago

Yes, the US founders opposed democracy; naturally, if the country were run by its population, the vast majority of whom aren't wealthy, they'd abolish debts, redistribute land, etc. (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s15....)

Then Andrew Jackson used the term democracy as political marketing (probably had the same impact as calling yourself "anarchist"), and the US system co-opted it and rebranded itself as a democracy. Because people naturally would like to govern their lives, rather than political and wealthy elites.

I recommend Graeber's _The Democracy Project_ for more on this; he's an anthropologist who helped found Occupy, and popularized the 99% slogan.

vixen99• 13 years ago

'if the country were run by its population, the vast majority of whom aren't wealthy, they'd abolish debts, redistribute land'. A crass assumption if I may say so.

nabla9• 13 years ago

You are assuming that English and international use of the term democracy was developed by American and for America. That's not the case.

The evolution of the use of the word happened in England and France. Frenchman Marquis d’Argenson (1694-1757) was first to define representative democracy in the way it's used today.

eludwig• 13 years ago

"Every nation gets the government it deserves" -Joseph de Maistre

If (enough) people really wanted it to be different, it would be.

digitalengineer3• 13 years ago

“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” Winston Churchill

Ihmahr• 13 years ago

Like in Iran? Where they over throw the dictator and US came in to install a new one?

jeswin• 13 years ago

I hate it when some people misuse Wikipedia like this. This reads like an opinion piece, and belongs to a blog.

edit: from the talk and history, the term was invented by Wolin, but has found little acceptance elsewhere. I am all for adding this to Wikipedia once it becomes generally accepted. But not as a means to get there.

madaxe_again• 13 years ago

It's not misuse - it's a political concept, described by Wolin, a well known and respected academic in the field most thoroughly in his book "Democracy Incorporated - Managed Inverted Totalitarianism": http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverte...

I mean, if this is misuse, you'd better nix nihilism, liberalism, socialism, and all the rest, as those are also just "opinions".

jpttsn10• 13 years ago

While all "isms" are ideas, the interesting ones are shared by enough people to enhance communication. Inventing new "isms" to market fringe ideas should be discouraged on this basis; it makes things harder to understand.

rainsford2• 13 years ago

There's nothing wrong with Wikipedia pages covering political concepts, this article is just a very bad example of how to do that well. The article is about something that is not a widely accepted concept, only cites the primary source that defined the concept, is at least as focused on arguing that the US (and only the US) is an example of the concept as it is on defining the concept, and reads like a political OP-ED written in the third person.

It would be like if the article about socialism only sourced books by Bill O'Reilly and was all about how President Obama is definitely a socialist. Even accepting that Wolin is more academic and respected than O'Reilly (I really have no idea), I don't think this meets the bar of encyclopedia entry.

nakedrobot2• 13 years ago

If you hate it, then get the article deleted.

But maybe Wikipedia itself is ruled by Inverted Totalitarianism? ;-)

pessimizer• 13 years ago

So you would rather a Wikipedia that vets ideas for quality rather than simply recording them? That would make it difficult to research ideas that are both important and wrong, like the ones of 19th century messianic cults and Theosophy.

grimtrigger• 13 years ago

The problem isn't that the idea is "wrong", but that its not a notable enough idea to warrant a wikipedia page. Anyone can coin any term in a blog post.

julie12• 13 years ago

Once I was disagreeing on the "fallacy" article in wikipedia (fr) with someone (I used to contribute), I created an article so that I could coined the "argumentum ad wikipediam" that says if somehting is on wikipedia it was true.

The other contributor made his point by pointing it is just an argumentum ad autoritatem.

Then I discovered that wikipedia was turning with NPOV (I had some fights) into an authority : the validation of a NPOV is made by a team of recurrent contributors who have bias (like believing that when someone claim to be a researcher in their page like them it must be true even if we cannot check the real identity of the person).

Every system of knowledge and cooperation tends to be plagued by the emergence of an "aristocracy" of self declared experts.

Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts (Feynman).

On the other hand, for now WP is still sane you can still open a claim that this article is violating NPOV. Because that is the case.

Redactors will study your case you might even be winning because you are stating the obvious : it seems (in my opinion) it has nothing to do with an universal non biased knowledge.

Even if I had a grudge with WP that may back your claim, I won't actually agree with until you signal this article as NPOV.

Here is your entry point for making what is right : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view...

tokenadult• 13 years ago

"This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this article by introducing citations to additional sources."

We may as well find some better-quality writing about the one author's idea, rather than using an article from the Encyclopedia That Any Point-of-View-Pusher Can Edit™ as a coatrack to open up a discussion on Hacker News. Hacker News can be a community in which people use much better sources than most Wikipedia articles (I am a Wikipedian, so I have seen the sausage made) if we let it be.

jpttsn10• 13 years ago

Interesting. I'd question the "totalizing dynamics" part. In my view Wolin couples two arguments unnecessarily tightly:

* Today's govt. marketing makes it seem more legitimate than it is. Democracy is vulnerable to a panem-et-circenses strategy.

* If citizens' needs are not satisfied by a welfare state, they are rendered helpless enough to be managed by a veiled totalitarian regime.

The former is an interesting problem, expressed well. The latter is more concerning. Are opinions (votes) really worthless just because voters are exposed to economic realities?

I don't think democracy rests on voters being "secure" (in the welfare state sense) when they make their decision.

Classically the line is drawn at secret/anonymous voting. OP suggests voters also need to have their economy guaranteed, if their votes are to give the government any legitimacy. That's very different.

canadaduane• 13 years ago

I don't think democracy rests on voters being "secure" (in the welfare state sense) when they make their decision.

This is a really interesting question/assertion. I lean toward security being necessary for good decision making. For example, people whose time is spent primarily on "getting by" will have far less time and psychological wherewithal to propose new ideas that meet their needs and the group; creative problem solving is less likely[1]. They may be able to voice their opinion on a multiple-choice proposal, however, which could pass as democracy I suppose.

A smaller number of people may have a creative ability that is inversely related to stress--necessity is the mother of invention and all that. But I don't think that is a majority, and perhaps unfortunately, democracy depends on the psychological traits of the majority.

[1] http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/strsbeta.htm

jpttsn10• 13 years ago

Oh, surely. But as democratic thinkers, we don't trust the public by reason of their good decision making.

4bpp• 13 years ago

The second point does mesh quite well with my observations regarding the system. If you question a fairly randomly sampled member of the populace as to why they would choose to vote for one of the established political parties rather than a new or minor party that may represent their position on most issues much more closely, the answer you will get will invariably be some sort of invocation of a fear of economical downturn or collapse, as only "experienced" or, in a somewhat Kafkaesque turn, outright industry-coddling politicians are trusted to know what is good for the economy. The net effect is that anything that the established parties have a consensus on is effectively impossible to challenge in the political system (and no member of either established party has much of an incentive to break the consensus); it is hard to imagine that this would be the case to the same extent if the majority of voters did not consider their economical situation to be in some sense precarious or unsatisfactory.

XorNot4• 13 years ago

This is a uniquely American view on the situation. In America, unless your favored major party holds overwhelming dominance, then voting for any third party is actively voting against your own interests.

Its easier to lobby within a party to change things then try and form a new one, given the way the first past the post voting system in the US works. In countries without one, new parties can form and gain some influence all the time.

jpttsn10• 13 years ago

Perhaps; it seems obvious. I'm not debating that point.

The premise of democracy is that the will of the governed gives legitimacy to power.

This (I argue) doesn't presuppose that the governed have security of income, a positive view of the future of the nation, perfect information, or anything like that. What matters is they choose, not their reasons for choosing.

coldtea6• 13 years ago

I don't think democracy rests on voters being "secure" (in the welfare state sense) when they make their decision.

No, an insecure population can also act democratically, but it's much more easier to pressure it.

jpttsn10• 13 years ago

Right. Pressure, though, doesn't invalidate their decision. Cfr. how a purchase is valid even if you saw an ad for the product.

rayiner12• 13 years ago

The second argument is also nonsensical. The welfare state is larger today than it ever has been. The key difference is that old people have taken over as the primary beneficiaries. And they're more politically active then any other group. Ironically, they also support many of the "external" policies Wolin rejects.

znowi• 13 years ago

The US is indeed a superpower. The only superpower left after the Soviets collapsed. It's not a big leap to predict how it's going to turn out in the long term without checks and balanced imposed. This is the first step:

the Bush Doctrine that the United States has the right to launch preemptive wars

Unless the American citizenry, along with the western allies, oppose this militant attitude, it's not going to end well - whatever new term you call it.

ordinary• 13 years ago

The George W. Bush administration was hardly the first to act according to that point of view. Just about every country that has held significant power has at some point fought wars of aggression.

wreegab2• 13 years ago

I don't read anywhere that he said this was the first time. Why would you suggest he said that?

redblacktree2• 13 years ago

In the name of self defense?

rayiner12• 13 years ago

Bush was just insensitive enough to say what everyone else believes. I can't think of any country that would willingly take preemptive strike off the table.

dragonwriter4• 13 years ago

the Bush Doctrine that the United States has the right to launch preemptive wars

Strictly speaking, preemptive war is a universally understood prerogative of every nation -- "preemptive war" is proximate self-defense against a specific, real, imminent threat before the attacking blow lands.

What Bush did is redefine preemption to include preventive war -- "self-defense" against a vague, general, nonspecific, distant potential threat that an enemy might, someday in the future, decide to attack (using capacities that do not even yet exist and which are themselves nonspecific, speculative, and distant potentials).

Preemptive war is problematic in practice, but generally regarded as an essential corollary of the right to wage war defensively; the Bush Doctrine of preventive war, OTOH, is equivalent to allowing the "self-defense" as a defense to murder charges because the killer had a belief that the victim might, someday in the future, get a gun and kill them and so they needed to kill them before that occurred.

marvin2• 13 years ago

There are plenty of interesting things to be said about the United States and its similarities (and differences) to totalitarian regimes of the past. I don't think we should point to Wikipedia as the authority on this matter, but it is perfectly okay to go to the primary sources for insight in this. These are recent historical developments, and the questions are covered in so much controversy that it is difficult to find unbiased commentary.

As I have said before, there are plenty of really worrying developments in the theory and execution of power in the United States. When I say worrying, I mean worrying in the sense that they remind closely of things that totalitarian regimes have done in the past. We shouldn't be distracted too much by history when analyzing contemporary events - "History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

The list, which you can compile by simply reading the news, is quite long: Warrantless dragnet surveillance, world record incarceration rate, selective enforcement and prosecution of unclear and conflicting criminal law, lifetime incarceration for non-violent crimes, utilization of paramilitary forces (SWAT teams) against non-violent offenders, plea bargains as a tool for simplifying prosecution under the threat of lifetime sentencing, indefinite detainment and incarceration with no judicial oversight (Guantanamo), extrajudicial execution of citizens (drone strikes), limitations on free speech during peaceful protests, systematic prosecution of whistleblowers.

These are just some issues which are interesting to discuss. I am an outsider, and I believe the things I have quoted are facts which have very small political bias in the interpretation. The United States' deadlocked political system and prosecutors' role in the execution of power is also worthy of discussion, although it is harder to discuss this without taking a particular political view.

bananacurve2• 13 years ago

There are plenty of interesting things to be said about the United States and its similarities (and differences) to totalitarian regimes of the past.

While implying that the US is a totalitaian state will get you lots of up votes from insecure europeans, the word has no meaning if it encompasses the current state of affairs in America. Could that change? Sure. Pretending it is already the case is fine as long as you realize you are just pretending.

redblacktree2• 13 years ago

It certainly is for some. For example, the folks still indefinitely detained at Guantanamo would probably agree that it's a totalitarian state.

XorNot4• 13 years ago

And up votes from middle class Americans who are just outraged about having to pay taxes. Or something-something NSA.

coldtea6• 13 years ago

While implying that the US is a totalitaian state will get you lots of up votes from insecure europeans, the word has no meaning if it encompasses the current state of affairs in America.

It would be convenient to keep the word "totalitarianism" forever connected with the very specific practices of Nazi Germany or, say, Stalin's USSR, and only those. Unfortunately the word and the practice existed way before and will continue to exist in the future. And there's not just a single form of it.

One can spend all his life between home, office, some cosy restaurant or cafe, friends house, and never understand anything that's going on in society at large, if he's so inclined. Especialy if he's on the upper echelon, e.g not a black, latino, native american, or "white trash", so he doesn't get to transparently see the structures of totalitarianism in a day by day basis.

From the militarization of police: http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americ...

to cities built for exclusion and closing down of public space: http://www.amazon.com/City-Quartz-Excavating-Future-Angeles/...

to the privitazation of prisons (and the highest incarceration rate of the world by far, surpassing even Stalin's era Gulag percentages when it comes to blacks): http://www.amazon.com/Punishment-Sale-Private-Business-Incar...

to the dwindling middle-class (which is, when it exists, the real pillar of democracy): http://www.amazon.com/Servant-Economy-Americas-Sending-Middl...

Add mass surveillance, three-strike laws that resemble 19th century ethics, the concentrated control of mass media, constant external war, etc etc and you have quite a potent mix.

frostmatthew• 13 years ago

Pretending it is already the case is fine as long as you realize you are just pretending.

I'm forced to wonder if Germans in the late 30s/early 40s considered themselves living in a totalitarian state. If not, their response to the suggestion would probably be along the lines of your comment.

thwest• 13 years ago

I think you are pretending that previous regimes were comically totalitarian, rather than meeting any realistic definition of the word. Even state sponsored Soviet art projects ended up funding pieces that had anti-Stalin and anti-state parodies in them. Even the Nazi party had internal tensions.

Speaking as an America, it's exactly this kind of pithy dismissal from the psuedo-intellectual class that gives our regime a pass. The vast swath of American political discussion is limited to the purview of cable news, and in these few bastions of informed discussion when real political problems of our country are discussed there's always this contingent of people who aggressively don't care and find offense in others caring.

Your post is somewhat amazing in that respect, especially the emphasis on "pretending" as the separation from reality that makes you comfortable with this conversation. There's nothing so uniquely unrighteous about America that it can't fall into the same power struggles that all empires throughout history have. If the citizenry is going to prevent that we need to be able to discuss it without resorting to pretending.

marvin2• 13 years ago

While implying that the US is a totalitaian state will get you lots of up votes from insecure europeans

You are putting words in my mouth - I said no such thing. But getting caught up in this kind of debate is exactly what I was trying to avoid by wording my comment carefully.

Let's discuss it from a different angle, and ignore the world "totalitarianism" for a moment. Looking at my (incomplete) list of recent developments in the execution of power in the United States, consider the following questions: Are these things good for American society and the world at large? What is their implication for the potential oppression and persecution of political opponents? How about other abuses of power, perhaps less systematic, e.g. the oppression of certain demogratic groups? Are they to any degree at all used for such purposes already?

I think these questions are interesting from a purely intellectual point of view, and very worthy of being discussed. Although personally I do believe that the current situation in the United States is worrying in the light of previous world history.

pizza234• 13 years ago

The perspective of the article is perfectly legitimate, and accusing europeans is only a pretext.

Don't forget that due to the, let's say, unparalleled "power and efficiency" of the States as a country, also the "dark side" of its government is assuming very scary power and efficiency.

The three main points raised by the article are perfectly reasonable, and worst of all, they're happening, for real, now.

dualogy• 13 years ago

While implying that the US is a totalitaian state will get you lots of up votes from insecure europeans

Not only that, also a lot from secure europeans!

Perhaps it is indeed more so the "insecure" Europeans that still eagerly adore the shiny Hollywood/Silicon Valley rendition of "America" ;)

jessaustin10• 13 years ago

As I have said before...

Surely if anyone can change things in the USA for the better, it's you, Mr. President.

dragonwriter4• 13 years ago

Surely if anyone can change things in the USA for the better, it's you, Mr. President.

The US system of government is engineered to assure, more than anything else that a single actor cannot unilaterally effect major change.

j_baker2• 13 years ago

The US has really always been "practical" when it comes to Civil Liberties during times of war or disaster, going back to the Alien and Sedition Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

It's easy to be cynical about the way the US government is heading, but I believe that Americans care too much about their rights to let this type of thing continue. I mean, sure we have our fair share of threats to our democracy, but we also have a lot of rights in terms of fighting those threats. For example, I feel we have stronger protections for freedom of speech than most industrialized countries.

As I understand it, in the UK you have nothing to prevent prior restraint on the part of the government. That is, the government can censor you before you publish something. In the US, this is illegal (Of course, the government can still punish you for publishing something illegal. They can only do it after it's been published.)

Also, we've gone to great lengths to protect the rights of even the worst groups (the KKK, Fred Phelps and company), while some countries have provisions against this sort of thing.

Long story short, I'm disappointed with the state of American democracy, but I'm hopeful. I think when more people learn about what's going on behind the scenes, things will change for the better.

EDIT: Here's a fun fact. Part of the Alien and Sedition acts are still the law in the US: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/21

cdash• 13 years ago

When is the US not at war though? Almost never as far as I know.

jkrems• 13 years ago

The UK is maybe the worst example for freedom (just because they have a tradition of security being more important - it's the country of 1984 and "Brave New World" after all). Comparing America with France and Germany you get a different picture of freedom of speech imho. I did not hear about people in those countries being held at airports for indefinite time because they were suspected of being in contact with journalists who published the wrong thing.

colinbartlett• 13 years ago

Congratulations, pikachu_is_cool, you are now a blip on the NSA radar.

whyme2• 13 years ago

So things are much more sinister than I had originally believed, and this does explain why the US is not genuinely worried about the national debt!

ianmcgowan• 13 years ago

What's scary about reading articles like this is that if they are true, those "in power" don't care enough what people think to try and suppress these thoughts.

If the frog is boiling, where are we at on the scale of "didn't make tenure" to "jack booted swat team renditions you"?

julie12• 13 years ago

USA today is like Athena after the 2nd medic war: a Republic that claims to be a democracy. During Peloponese war, Athena the "democracy" had turned into a violent colonial power, and Sparta the totalitarian state turned oddly into the creation of an alliance for protecting the weakest.

Needless to say at the end, of these war neither Athena nor Sparta won, because they both lost.

Plato's Republic is a simple HOWTO turn a democracy ruled by citizens into a system claiming to be ruled in the best interest of the citizen by a minority of "Wise men" with an elite of watchmen that enforce the power.

Read Alan Moore's "Watchmen" for a criticize of the republic (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)

Pericles(or Solon (don't remember) before Athena became a Republic said the same thing as Eisenower: beware of the richs that want to get a grip on a state and extend their power through their influence and will use military power for expension.

Nothing new under the sun. The guy is reinventing the wheel

http://classics.mit.edu/Thucydides/pelopwar.html

rayiner12• 13 years ago

Wolin essentially mistakes hegemony for totalitarianism. The U.S. is a global hegemon in the same vein as the Great Britain used to be. An open society internally that maintains global superiority using military power. Sometimes global or regional hegemons, like the Soviet Union, are totalitarian, but it's not necessarily the case. Great Britain clearly wasn't a totalitarian state.

Also problematic is Wolin's implied assumption that hegemony can only exist if democracy is compromised. But that's utterly absurd. Why would anyone expect that voters, given the free choice, wouldn't want the benefits that accrue from their country having global supremacy? Does anyone think that, deep down, Americans really want to be like Europe, just another player on the world stage who must modulate their foreign policy based on the consideration that they can't impose it unilaterally? Even people who believe the U.S. should act multilaterally when possible don't necessarily believe the U.S. should concede the option to act unilaterally when necessary.

Zigurd3• 13 years ago

Why would anyone expect that voters, given the free choice, wouldn't want the benefits that accrue from their country having global supremacy?

That has an easy answer if you look at treaties like TPP: The hegemon uses power over trading "partners" to work around the will of the people. Hegemony is no benefit to the majority of the people. It is a tool used against them.

mrobot2• 13 years ago

Point 2, apathy:

"Nothing to hide" is an apathetic "Yes, Sir" to losing self control, letting the results machine analyze and respond to your life actions with all power of an authority you've amplified for yourself.

Apathy toward drone "signature strikes" is a "Yes, Sir" to striking and killing exactly where the results machine wishes.

The results machine does not have human well-being programmed as a core, infallible rule. That means that mistakes like collateral human damage are not seen as mistakes at all, they are part of getting results.

Trusting any machine we've built to probe and manipulate the earth to meet any end other than human growth and good is very scary and selfish.

Apathy is the new allegiance toward our scary and selfish state.

Pitarou2• 13 years ago

Godwin's Law writ large.

Which is not to understate the scale of the problems alluded to, but the analogy isn't enlightening. It's just name-calling.

whyme2• 13 years ago

Correct me if I am wrong, but Godwin's law does not apply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

"Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Nazis – often referred to as "playing the Hitler card". The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics, or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies,..."

Pitarou2• 13 years ago

You're right. The term doesn't quite fit. I'll have to invent a new one.

How does "Bottom Up Godwin's Law" sound to you?

;-)

dylandrop• 13 years ago

So if you compare the U.S. and Nazis they are therefore foils of each other? While I agree that the U.S. falls short of being a true democracy for all of those three bullet points, I'm a little confused about Wolin's reasoning. His argument seems to be:

* In Nazi Germany, the state dominated economic factors, in the U.S. corporations do

* Nazis advocated political action, U.S. does not and does not advocate voting

* Nazis mocked democracy, U.S. made it its ideology

* Therefore Nazis and the U.S. are very similar

Doesn't anyone see why this is problematic reasoning? He just made three points that showed how the U.S. and Nazi Germany have flawed political models, but the connections seem to be few and far between. I get that he's saying that they are both nondemocratic systems under the guise of democracy, but it seems a little farfetched using this argument.

puppetmaster3• 13 years ago

" in inverted totalitarianism, corporations through political contributions and lobbying, dominate the United States, with the government acting as the servant of large corporations. This is considered "normal" rather than corrupt.[6]"

FrankenPC• 13 years ago

On the surface this appears to be true. But, like all things in a constant flux, it's a lot more complicated than it seems. One observation though, I've always wondered if Orwell's novel would act as a warning to those who seek power. In other words, 1984 acted as a inventory of obvious psycho-social obstacles to avoid while attempting to control the masses.

mrobot2• 13 years ago

Scored below these, bumped from the front page, does not even have NSA in the name for NSA penalty. Is it because the submitter is green, or some other valid reason?

27. DataStickies: USB drives as sticky notes (datastickies.com) 120 points by JeanSebTr 18 hours ago | 89 comments

28. Best Firefox Add-ons of 2013 (mozilla.org) 106 points by yeukhon 21 hours ago | 50 comments

34. Inverted totalitarianism (wikipedia.org) 211 points by pikachu_is_cool 10 hours ago | 124 comments

ajslater• 13 years ago

Here's an insightful reddit comment from /r/changemyview

Q: The United States is moving towards facism CMV (sic)

A: Does the US exhibit some fascist traits? Sure. But I'd contend that we are moving farther, rather than closer.

http://np.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1se6cr/the_unit...

Inverted totalitarianism

Related Stories