Category: Totalitarianism

Introduction

Many theorists suggest that a family forms the first model of political society. This is mainly because parents are relieved of their duties of caring for children once they reach adulthood. Similarly, children are relieved of complete obedience to their parents at adulthood. Moreover, family bonds and obligations are practically broken. In fact, whatever remains is voluntary. It signifies an opportunity for children to be masters of their own destiny.

This is the basic unit of political society, in which people are born free but everywhere they remain in chain. The expression is according to Rousseau who asserts that modern states have the habit of repressing freedom, which is everyone’s birthright. Moreover, he faults them for neglecting civil freedom, which is the main reason for joining civil society. He therefore believes that legitimate political power can only be achieved through social contract. This paper will assess the view that social contract is totalitarian (Rousseau, 1762 p. 1).

Rousseau’s social contract

According to Rousseau, people are denied freedom, which is their birthright. He therefore believed that for considerable freedom to be exercised in any given society, it requires a legitimate government or political authority. Moreover, this authority must be attained through social contract. It is also quite important to note that the social contract must be accepted by all residents for mutual protection.

In this regard, he defines sovereign as a collective grouping of all individuals of a political society and maintains that it should be taken like an individual. In this sense, as far as an individual has a particular aim or goal in life for his or her best interest, a political society or sovereign have a general will that aims or fights for a common goal. Therefore, as much as the sovereign is absolute in its authority, it also has authority on issues of public interest or concern. In conclusion, Rousseau’s verdict to those who violate social contract is death.

According to Rousseau, an alien lawgiver is mandated with the responsibility of creating abstract as well as general laws. Moreover, it is in these laws that the general will is clearly expressed. In addition, he alludes to the fact that a government is required to perform executive duties along with sovereign in exercising legislative powers. The government is therefore mandated with the responsibility of running day-to-day activities in society. There are several forms of governments namely, monarchy, democracy and aristocracy, among others.

However, the form of government lies heavily on its size. For instance, monarchy is considered as the strongest of all forms of government. Moreover, according to Rousseau, it serves the largest population and is suited for hot climates. He also argues that aristocracies are the best form of government and usually more stable than the rest.

Rousseau also maintains those sovereigns is always distinct from government and therefore are always in constant friction. In this regard, this friction has the propensity of destroying a state. It is therefore important that the state remains healthy for stability and longer reign, which may last centuries.

Rousseau continues by pointing out that citizens implement their sovereignty through periodic and regular meetings. It is quite important to note that rarely does everyone attend these meetings; however, this is necessary for a healthy state. He also insists that use of representatives in these meetings endangers well being of a state especially since the general will cannot be heard.

In essence, he thinks that citizens should note vote for their personal needs, rather they should do so in the interest of general will. Furthermore, results attained from these votes ought to approach unanimity. This is where the rule of supermajority links as it ensures that the general will is heard. Rousseau uses an example of Roman republic to sink his view of social contract and the concept of general will.

Social Contract can thus be defines as an agreement that enables an individual to join a civil society. It therefore binds that individual into society or community that exists in the interest of communal protection. In this respect, such individuals loose the right to do whatever they want albeit they get civil freedom, which allows them to act and think morally and rationally. Therefore, Rousseau maintains that we can achieve human status by going into social contract (Schwartzberg, 2008, p. 403-423).

The general Will

Rousseau uses the concept of general will to assert his argument on a legitimate political society. He believes that a general will can only be achieved through inclusion of all members of society. This is contradictory to the current practices where representatives are elected to vote on behalf of citizens. He believes that this form of law making is contradictory to the needs of a people and therefore acts to serve personal needs and not the general will.

In this regard, he defines general will, as that will of sovereign, which aims at achieving a common good even though each member of a society is known to have his/her will. This is not expressed in the general will. In fact, general will express the will of a state, which covers everyone.

No wonder, he insists that everyone should be involved in such decisions since representatives may at times forward their own personal interests as is witnessed all over the world’s democracies. The general will is thus described as will of all, which can refer to the sum total of individual will.

However, this is only possible in a healthy state. In a state experiencing friction between sovereign and government, the general will differs from will of all. This is mainly because what is known to be general will, may sometimes be infiltrated by personal interests at the highest levels. This causes jittery and animosity between sovereign and government and may lead to fall of a state. General will is therefore very important and must concur with will of all, in order to achieve a healthy state (Schwartzberg, 2008, p. 403-423).

Democracy

There are several forms of governments in the contemporary world. These include democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy, among others. According to Rousseau, the form of government depends on its size. For example, monarchy is considered as strongest of all the various forms of government.

Furthermore, he maintains that Monarchy serves the largest population and is suitable for hot climates. In addition, Rousseau argues that aristocracies are the best form of government, which last for centuries. Rousseau faults modern democracies for demeaning their subjects and sovereign. For instance, modern democracies have representatives that are supposed to enact laws on behalf of citizens. However, this is not entirely true.

In fact, while some legislators go for their own interests, other push for ideologies over and above what their constituents want. This has caused jittery and acrimony in most countries with continual replacement of representatives during elections. Nonetheless, it continues to haunt them, as the trend of presenting personal thoughts continues.

Rousseau tries to determine the possibility of achieving freedom, as it should be and not in its present form where self interest takeover power and utilize it, as they want. In fact, it is for this reason that he goes for concurrence between the general will and will of all.

However, current democracies do not offer such provisions. In fact, they claim that Rousseau’s theories are impracticable in modern world and require an ideal world that can heed to most people’s wants. In essence, as much as democracy tries to achieve concurrence in issues and freedom, it fails to reach its minimum threshold in Rousseau’s view (Estlund, Waldron, Grofman & Feld, 1989, p. 1317-1340).

Super majority

Will of all refers to the total sum of all individuals will. When this total sum or will of all exceeds other factors, it can be described as a simple majority. In essence, a simple majority may encompass many variables but only the winner is taken as absolute even if the sum total of other losers exceeds that of the winner. However, this is quite different from super majority. In fact, this is where the will of all can be achieved in Rousseau’s view.

Therefore, super majority can only be achieved if the winner exceeds the sum total of all other losers. In this respect, it may be right to say that general will concurs with will of all if it is represented by a super majority. According to Rousseau, general will, must approach unanimity for it to be inclusive of all participants. This can only be achieved through votes that make up for a super majority. Some theories have however, linked Rousseau’s view on votes with epismestic reasons (Cohen, 1986, p. 257-297).

Discussion

This discussion is aimed at assessing whether Rousseau’s social contract is totalitarian. According to Rousseau’s social contract, people should be guided by a general will attained through super majority votes. In light of this, it can be a wonderful system of government if everyone has the same line of thought.

However, this is not the case in modern world, where capitalism makes people unequal. To some extent, it can apply in an aristocratic form of government where everyone seems to know where they belong and therefore gives up their freedom to a stronger power. The mere fact that one gives up his or her right to a general will, which may at times differ from the will of all, makes it dependent the executive.

However, this has proven to be a failure even though it acts to achieve common goals. The Romans used a similar system and it helped them achieve most of their goals. However, it denied basic rights to captives as well as citizens. To this extent, I can say that Rousseau’s social contract is totalitarian.

Furthermore, the fact that those who do not follow social contract are punishable by death makes it totalitarian. True liberty can be achieved through freedom. This allows creativity and innovation, among others. Designing basic line of thought, behavior and action can act to deny deserving people their right to participation in critical activities. Moreover, the states agenda should be well represented in the community, with the possibility of letting variant views to prove their worth.

Besides, it is not true that majority are always right. In fact, it has been shown beyond doubt that geniuses are very few, and this is same for significant ideologies. This is mainly because general will, may suffer from group psychology, which at times renders critical analysis useless. In this sense, use of Rousseau’s social contract in a state is likely to skew them towards a totalitarian government (Cohen, 1986, p. 257-297).

Totalitarian Regimes

Different regimes have emerged over the years. However of great concern is the links between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. Authoritarian regimes are those that dictate what its subject does. In this sense, orders are channeled from the executive for people to follow. It is quite important to note that totalitarian regimes usually rule by amassing total support from all its citizens.

This is usually achieved through many ways, some of which include threatening their lives and propaganda, among others. In this regard, it is essential to note that totalitarian rule may be detrimental to society especially if infiltrated by personal needs of those tasked with exercising government duties.

This is mainly because people come from different backgrounds, cultures and lines of thought. It is therefore impossible for them to think in the same line and submit completely to a super majority general will. This has the propensity of denying some people their right to thoughts and freedom of speech, among others (Rousseau, 1762 p. 1).

Assertion

I tend to think that Rousseau’s social contract is inclined towards a totalitarian government. This is mainly because people have different views in life. Therefore forcing them to give up their right to some government without credibility of sustaining such rights can lead to totalitarian government. Most regimes that run totalitarian government claim to derive support from all their subjects. This has led to conflicts when it matures.

For instance, Libyan governments as well as those of the Far East like China and North Korea tend to skew towards totalitarian government. However, they claim to have majority support from people who suffer daily to make ends meet. It is quite necessary to note that such regimes usually come as result of social contract. They may begin in an exceptional manner but later on turn into totalitarian government.

In other words, Rousseau’s social contract is closely linked to a totalitarian government than the freedom it claims to provide. This is because people have different views due to varying backgrounds. Therefore, tying them to a common goal, which may be one person’s interest, denies them their basic freedom of choice.

Moreover, not everyone has the capacity to understand common goals of a state. In most cases, the elite propose such ideologies based on their interests, which may be to exploit others. Rousseau’s social contract is therefore skewed towards a totalitarian government (Levine, 2002, p. 28).

Conclusion

According to Rousseau, people are denied their birthright, which is freedom. In this regard, he suggests a legitimate political authority, which comes to power through social contract. This, he believes would provide the freedom that people deserves. Social contract is an agreement that enables an individual to join civil society. It therefore binds the individual into society in the interest of communal protection.

However, this is tantamount to totalitarian rule since everyone is bound completely to one solid government. Besides, human nature states that people differ in thoughts, needs, and ideologies, among others. Social contract therefore has the propensity to deny them the right of choice hence leading to a totalitarian government (Rousseau, 1762 p. 1).

Reference List

Cohen, J 1986, ‘Reflections on Rousseau: Autonomy and Democracy’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol.15, No.3, pp. 257-297.

Estlund, DM Waldron, J Grofman, B & Feld, SL 1989, ‘Democratic Theory and the Public Interest: Condorcet and Rousseau Revisited’, American Political Science Review, Vol.83, No.4, pp. 1317-1340.

Levine, A 2002, Engaging Political Philosophy: From Hobbes to Rawls, Blackwell, Oxford.

Rousseau, JJ 1762, The Social Contract or Principles of Political Right, Translated by G. D. H. Cole. Web.

Schwartzberg, M 2008, ‘Voting the General Will: Rousseau on Decision Rules’, Political Theory, Vol.36, No.3, pp. 403-23.

Introduction

Total dominance is described as totalitarianism in the book ‘The Origins of Totalitarianism” by Hannah Arendt. She described totalitarianism as a system of total dominance by state over its citizens. Totalitarianism was seen as a destructive movement that dehumanized human beings.

Arendt concentrated on the Nazi regime of Hitler and Stalin’s Soviet Union. The totalitarian movement was as a result of disoriented people because the world that they lived was destroyed by inflation, revolution and unemployment. Jews were the most affected by the bad regime (Arendt 25).

Total domination is a major theme in the book of Hannah Arendt. The book has the following subjects: Totalitarianism, Nazism and Stalinism. The book is written in English and it’s a non-fiction. It was written in 2006 and the publisher is Bedford/St Martin.

Hannah Arendt was born on October 1906 and died on December 1975. She was a political theorist and her works dealt with totalitarianism and power. She was an American who came from Germany. The book is of interest to people because it is an indirect study of totalitarianism by the Nazi regime.

There are other authors with the theme of totalitarianism. In 1923, Giovanni Gentile described totalitarianism as the control of citizens by the states.

The states had goals that they used to guide their citizens. Richard Pipes argued that totalitarianism aimed at mobilizing people to support the state’s ideology and activities. He further argued that totalitarianism did not support activities that were not the state’s goals like religion, labor unions etc.

Totalitarianism

Arendt described totalitarianism as a system which was governed by ideologies and employed its powers on its citizen. Totalitarianism was caused by radical and ambitious people. Arendt concentrated on the Nazi regime of Hitler and Stalin’s Soviet Union. Totalitarianism was seen as a destructive movement that dehumanized human beings. Totalitarianism was a system of total dominance by state over its citizens (Arendt 27).

There were experiments done in concentration camps. The concentration camps were termed as laboratories to exercise total domination. The totalitarianism of the Nazi regime was aimed at making human beings gain the characteristics of animal species.

Nazism practiced total terror mostly inside the camps so as to intimidate people and make them feel less human. This facilitated total dominance. Nazism also believed that human beings could only be totally dominated if they were converted into animal species.

Stalin and Hitler were both racists. They believed that a certain race had to die. The Nazism movement believed in racial supremacy. Totalitarianism was practiced politically, economically and socially. It also aimed at making human beings superfluous (Arendt 32). People followed receptive ideologies of the Nazism and Stalinism regime.

Causes of Totalitarianism

Arendt argued that imperialism led to totalitarianism. The military, political upheaval and economic status of Germany led it to conquer other countries for capitalist expansion. This led to a country that was not stabilized both politically and socially. Therefore, the totalitarian movement resulted from disoriented people as the world that they lived in was destroyed by inflation, revolution and unemployment.

The Jews lack of citizenship was another factor that promoted their killing. The author explained that this was a totalitarian way of approach. Jews were not German citizens and, hence, could not claim any rights. They were seen as a nuisance and had to be killed. Racism and lack of citizenship of the Jews was a major factor that contributed to Nazism (Arendt 42).

The Lessons of Totalitarianism

Arendt described totalitarianism as futile and destructive. She also said that it could not last for long due to its dictatorial nature. Unemployment, political upheaval and overpopulation led to totalitarianism. Both Stalinism and Nazism committed same crimes and their activities were horrifying.

They also practiced communism. Totalitarianism should not be practiced because it is ridiculous. People were tortured so as to be kept in line. The totalitarian governments could not exercise their control without the concentration camps. This is mentioned by Arendt when she said that the camps were centers for totalitarian regimes.

One controversial thing is Arendt’s view of murder in concentration camps. She argued that the murderer did not take someone’s existence with them even if they took his or her life. Murder was murder even if the Nazi people did not take away someone’s existence with them or they just killed one person.

There were also exterminations at the concentration camps in the Soviet Union (Armstrong 29). They used these camps as laboratories for research in their totalitarianism belief of anything is possible.

The Nazi in Germany and the Communist Russia were different from monarchical regimes. Arendt described autocratic regimes as wanting to have political power only over their citizens while totalitarian regimes wanted to take control of every dimension of people’s lives. Totalitarianism was mostly marked by a single party, personality cultism, restrictions in giving speeches and use of mass surveillance.

Conclusion

In conclusion, totalitarianism was a system of total dominance by the state over its citizens. Nazism practiced total terror mostly inside the camps where the Jews were secluded. It was practiced politically, economically and socially. It also aimed at making human beings superfluous.

Works Cited

Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Schocken Books, 1951. Print.

Arendt, Hannah. Total Domination.7th ed. New York: Bedford/St Martin, 2006. Print.

Armstrong, John. The Politics of Totalitarianism New York: Random House, 1961. Print.

Introduction

Sinclair Lewis was the first American awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. The novel was written only in some months; it is considered to be inferior to the brilliant author’s novels of the 1920s. Nevertheless, Lewis’s satire still captured the attention of all the American readers. The novel appeared in 1935, in the period when the USA and the Western Europe were still in depression. In this political novel Lewis described the dangers of fascism by transferring this movement from Germany to the USA. What is more, later the novel inspired a play with the same title, which was extremely popular all over the United States.

Main body

In this novel the author describes his idea of what would happen if a dictator who promises an easy solution to the depression is elected.

In It Cant’t Happen Here there is a story of a “small-town newspaper editor” Doremus Jessup. When the new president is elected Doremus is 60. For a year he struggles with a new government in attempt to defend his newspaper from the censorship. His newspaper is the only liberalistic voice in his town. He struggles to fight against the totalitarian regime, but fails. Eventually Doremus Jessup is in a concentration camp. He is surprised to see that prison is the only future waiting for people like him.

To the journalist Doremus and his family it was not least interesting that among these imprisoned celebrities were so many journalists: Raymond Moley, Frank Simonds, Frank Kent, Heywood Broun, Mark Sullivan, Earl Browder, Franklin P. Adams, George Seldes, Frazier Hunt, Garet Garrett, Granville Hicks, Edwin James, Robert Morss Lovett—men who differed grotesquely except in their common dislike of being little disciples of Sarason and Macgoblin. (Lewis, 1993, 98).

In a year he manages to escape to Canada, and after that he goes back to his country in order to organize the underground resistance movement.

The new president Windrip is a power-hungry populist who appeals to his voters with stories of growing up poor. “He continued to tell himself that his main ambition was to make all citizens healthy, in purse and mind, and that if he was brutal it was only toward fools and reactionaries who wanted the old clumsy systems” (Lewis, 1993, 67). He masterly plays on anti-intellectualism of his electorate, which is the result of the lack of education, presenting Jefferson and Washington as pompous and old-fashioned politicians. According to his speeches, the Constitution itself is out of date. People from abroad cannot be trusted, especially if they are members of the “international Jewish Communist” conspiracy.

Any person advocating Communism, Socialism, or Anarchism, advocating refusal to enlist in case of war, or advocating alliance with Russia in any war whatsoever, shall be subject to trial for high treason, with a minimum penalty of twenty years at hard labor in prison, and a maximum of death on the gallows, or other form of execution which the judges may find convenient. (Lewis, 1993, 135).

Windrip is supported by an organization called the League of Forgotten Men, the members of which are mostly the representatives of the lower levels of the society.

The identity of Windrip is clear to every American who leaved then. Huey Long, senator from Louisiana, served his prototype. In 1935 Long has organized so-called the Share the Wealth League; he was actually going to replace Roosevelt in the capacity of the Democratic nominee in 1936.

The head of the League of Forgotten Men was Bishop Peter Paul Prang, the radio preacher. He made his contribution to the campaign by creating the belief that the church supports Windrip and his policy. Here we can observe a parallel with the present-day TV evangelists. In his novel Sinclair Lewis gives us the idea that television is even the more powerful tool of influencing the audience’s opinion than radio.

When Windrip finally gains the nomination of the party, first of all he announces of the nationalization of the mines, banks and transportation facilities. He proclaims that all the unions that can be suspected of having ties to the “reds” must be abolished. His policy is also to limit annual incomes and dividends.

Conclusion

So it is not difficult to trace the parallels of the plot to the present-day society. The public opinion is being constantly formed with the help of mass media, and usually people do not think about what hides behind pompous words and promises. We must learn from the history that such blind belief in what is being said by ads and TV may lead to sad consequences for the whole nation.

Reference

Lewis, Sinclair (1993). It Can’t Happen Here. USA: Signet Classics.

Introduction

Current essay deals with the problem which simultaneously has specific relation both to political science, history and theory of ideology. This problem may be formulated in the following way: Was Mao’s China ‘totalitarian’? To find the answer to this question, current essay focuses on the following issues: the notion and theoretical conceptualization of ‘totalitarianism’, as it occurs in Western political science during cold war.

Main body

Discussing the formation of ‘totalitarianism’ studies, the essay focuses on how they are tied with the general context of ideological and propagandist struggles during cold war. Based on our findings the legitimacy of the ‘totalitarianism’ concept is defined and the possibility of its application to the studies of Mao’s China. The second issue that is analyzed within the frames of this essay is economic, political and social developments in China under Mao.

The attention is particularly paid to the issues which incline many of researchers and ideologists to describe Mao’s China as totalitarian. Finally, based on general findings about Mao’s China within the contexts of Great Leap policies, collectivization and Cultural Revolution, the conclusion about real conditions of China’s society and its structure are made.

The notion of ‘totalitarianism’ and its applications in ideological studies.

There is no denying the importance of the fact that ‘totalitarianism’ is a common place not only in Western social sciences but also general ideological representation of different societies.

What is characteristic of the ‘totalitarianism’ concept as it was formulated in the works of Friedrich and Brzezinski is total neglect of social and economic relations formed in a given society. Totalitarianism for Brzezinski and Friedrich is an organic entity of state which took full control over civil society and directs it according to its corporate interests (Friedrich and Brzezinski, 1967). It is characterized by the dominance of single ideology, ruling mass party, the unilateral rule of dictator, which installs the system of terror, has monopoly over communication outlets and control over economy. Friedrich, Brzezinski and many scholars after them used this term for describing post-WW1 fascist states and socialist societies such as Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cuba etc.

There is no denying the importance of the fact that these concepts are mere ideological inversion of liberal postulates which are automatically canonized as true and progressive. From the point of careful analysis of socialists societies (China, Soviet Union), this conceptualization is very poor because it is focused not on their understanding but delegitimation.

The complex interrelation between social, human and productive forces development and progressive overcoming of capitalist relations and cruel accumulation is totally neglected. In these way ‘totalitarianism’ concept produces another historical justification of ‘totalitarian’ liberal state which in fact corresponds with basic features of ‘totalitarianism’ concept – single ideology (liberalism), dictatorship (of market) and the lack of democracy which is formal and controlled by lobby groups and big corporations. Now, let’s look at the historical contours of Mao’s China and refer to basic points in which ‘totalitarianism’ ideology has pretensions.

China under Mao: contradictive development

Before the communist takeover in China and bloody Civil War between Mao and Chan Kaishi, the economy and overall Chinese society was controlled by Western monopolies which exploited China’s natural resources and labor force (Barnouin, 1993, p. 23). The country was practically divided between British Empire, France, Japan, Germany and other Western states. Hence, there is no denying the importance of the fact that Mao accession to power can be described as positive development for the China’s poor whose interests were for the first time protected in the history of this country.

The basic pretensions of ‘totalitarianism’ theoreticians such as the repressive nature of planning and socialism can be debunked as ideologically prejudiced if they contradict with the interests of population in a given country. Market relations are more antidemocratic and repressive in nature than socialist redistribution of wealth, land and national power as it took place in Mao’s China, because they are based on the imperative of profit and monopoly control of the small layer of private owners over national resources and capital.

This can be easily proved by references to the history of Western countries which gained their momentum of social equality in the era of so called welfare state when state took active role in redressing negative consequences of capital accumulation by means of social redistribution of wealth and possibilities.

After Mao came to power he embarked on democratic social policy by meeting the interests of common peasants (the dominant social class in China). Huge individual land ownership was abolished and Chinese peasants received possibility of cultivating their land for the virtue of all Chinese citizens.

New small land holders used their land to produce necessary products for society and sold them to the government. High taxes and rents were abolished. Besides this, new land policy allowed using the fruits of agricultural development for stimulating industrialization of this backward country (Fairbank and Goldman, 1998, 23). As a consequence, Chinese industrialization resulted in the development of urban areas, massive architecture projects and life buildings for the urban workers. Besides this, economic development stimulated the growth of professional cadres and science, transforming China into modern industrial country. Unlike Western countries these processes were not characterized with growing social polarization and equality but on the contrary resulted in more just and equal redistribution of wealth among Chinese citizens. The development of industry helped resolve historical problems of floods and irrigations as new dikes were built.

Of course, these developments which brought positive social changes and were welcomed by Chinese peasantry can not be described as ‘totalitarian’ policies. ‘Totalitarian’ means not meeting the interests of democratic sovereign – people. Both subjectively and objectively these policies were positive for the Chinese population and this can be additionally proved by the warm welcome for collectivization in the end of the 1950s (Murphey, 1996, 50).

The personality of Mao is one of the main reasons for describing him as a totalitarian leader. However, this greatly contradicts with real historical facts and Mao’s policy. As Hart-Landsberg and Burkett claim, Mao was an egalitarian politician who struggled against elite dominance in the party and bureaucracy. He claimed that only Chinese people are the source of wisdom and was a real populist politician. This can be proved by real historical facts – Cultural Revolution in China which would be described later was one of the main sources of democratization in the Party and struggle against egoist bureaucracy.

However, it was accompanied by repressions which are objectively negative phenomenon, the designation of these practices as totalitarian runs contrary to their nature and objectives (Hart-Landsberg and Burkett, 2005).

In the end of the 50s in his struggle with bureaucracy Mao decided to launch the campaign of improving the free speech which used the slogan “Let a Hundred Flowers bloom!” and which was pressured by Party oligarchy to be stopped, however it had positive consequences for the Chinese society where the level of civil consciousness and education permanently raised.

The strategy of Great Leap which was started in 1960s also shows that Mao considered planning to be not so effective and desired to give people possibility to spontaneously decide on their economic interests. This fact is widely quoted and proved by historical expertise and thus it is misguided to say that Mao realized totalitarian policies.

Cultural Revolution, declared by Mao also centered on democratizing the culture and political agenda in China and, hence, may be described as democratic practice (Barnouin, 1993).

Conclusion

To sum it up, our analysis shows that those experts, who denounce Mao’s China as ‘totalitarian’ and antidemocratic fail to capture basic democratic and egalitarian trends which were characteristic of Mao’s initiated policies and therefore are ideologically prejudiced and false.

The history of China after Mao vividly proved that bureaucratization and market mentality against which Mao struggled proved to be more powerful than democratic policies, however this does not prove that these developments are progressive for the Chinese people.

‘Totalitarian’ concept can not be used in China’s case unless we seek objective and analytical research of Chinese society, because this concept is ideologically prejudiced and serves propagandist role in the history of Western though. Only immanent analysis of Chinese society and materialist research may give us necessary tools for developing objective approach to Chinese history and Mao’s role in it. Such historical events as Great Leap, Cultural Revolution, Free Speech campaigns are democratic phenomenon, however their democratic nature should be analyzed based on the structural features of Chinese society and its contradictions.

References

Fairbank, J. K. and Goldman, M., 1998 China: a New History.

Barnouin, Barbara. 1993, Ten years of turbulence: the Chinese cultural revolution. Publication of the Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva. London; New York: Kegan Paul International; New York: Distributed by Routledge, Chapman & Hall Inc.

Chan, Anita., 1985. Children of Mao: Personality development and political activism in the Red Guard generation. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

Friedrich, Carl and Brzezinski, Z. K., 1967, Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy. 2^nd edition.

Hart-Landsberg, M., Burkett P, 2005. China and Socialism: Market Reforms and Class Struggle. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Murphey, Rhoads., 1996, East Asia: A New History. University of Michigan Press.

Selden, Mark, 1979, The People’s Republic of China: Documentary History of Revolutionary Change. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Terrill, Ross, 2003, The New Chinese Empire, And What It Means For The United States. New York: Basic Books.

Before we address the question contained in the assignment, we will have to get an insight into what the concept of art actually stands for, which in itself, represents a great challenge, simply because there is no uniformity in how social scientists define this concept.

Nevertheless, within the context of discussing art as a socio-political phenomenon, it is best described as an aesthetic indication of cultural and scientific progress’ continuity. In its turn, this explains why the objective value of artistic expressions cannot be thought of as a “thing in itself” – people’s inclination to indulge in artistic pursuits actually reflects their ability to build and maintain civilization. For example, without knowing anything about such countries as Italy and Equatorial Guinea, one can still get a very good idea as to what these countries represent, simply by the mean of looking at Michelangelo’s statues, on one hand, and on primitive African figurines, carved out of wood, on another.

Therefore, it is not simply a coincidence that the existence of totalitarian political regimes in the 20^th century had not only resulted in the political power of art is significantly increased, but also in providing additional momentum to the pace of scientific progress. Apparently, a totalitarian form of political governing creates metaphysical preconditions for citizens to associate their existence with the concept of purposefulness. In its turn, this boosts up people’s sense of perceptional idealism; thus, increasing their willingness to participate in artistic pursuits and also making them more psychologically susceptible to the ideological meaning of government’s sponsored art.

Nowadays, it is being commonly assumed that the concepts of art and totalitarianism are diametrically opposite, while in fact, it is actually another way around – the very essence of art is totalitarian, simply because, during the course of the creative process artists strive for nothing less than having their works being referred to as such that represent an unsurpassed aesthetic value, while often denying even a remote possibility that the works of other artists might be equally valuable.

In her article “Art and Political Agendas”, Martica Sawin is making a very good point when she suggests it is conceptually fallacious to associate art with the concept of democracy alone: “It is utterly simplistic to assume that artistic independence goes hand-in-hand with democratic institutions while it is absent completely in totalitarian states” (Sawin, 1993, p. 94).

Today, only very ignorant people would deny the fact that ancient Roman and Greek ideals of physical beauty and intellectual excellence served as the foundation for Western aesthetics, throughout the history of Western civilization, due to these ideals’ objective value. In other words, during the course of millennia, Europeans subconsciously longed towards antique ideals of beauty, despite being spiritually oppressed by Christianity, which glorified the “destruction of flesh”.

However, it was namely Fascist and National-Socialist regimes that allowed citizens to realize such their artistic longings, by encouraging artists to popularise the aesthetic ideals of antiquity and Renaissance. In his article “Fascist Aesthetics and Society”, George L. Mosse states: “The aesthetic which stood at the center of this civic religion (Fascism) was the climax of a long development. The idea of beauty was central to this aesthetic, whether that of the human body or of the political liturgy.

The longing for a set standard of beauty was deeply ingrained in the European middle classes, and the definition of the beautiful as the ‘good, the true, and the holy’ was an important background to the fascist cult” (Mosse, 1996, p. 246).

Thus, we can say that it was actually the “totalitarian art”, from which both: Fascism and National-Socialism derived and not the other way around. In its turn, this explains why today’s students that specialize in art, are being encouraged to admire antique aesthetics, while being simultaneously taught to deny the artistic value of Arno Breker’s sculptures as such that glorify Nazism, despite the fact these sculptures emanate the original spirit of ancient Greek aesthetics.

The same can be said about Communist totalitarian art. When we look at artistic representations of “class struggle”, as such that define the essence of socio-political dynamics in a particular society, it will appear that these representations are being concerned with antique aesthetics as much as the Nazi art itself – “proletarians” have always been depicted as youthful, proportionally perfect and physically strong individuals.

In his book “Movies and Methods”, Bill Nichols states: “The taste for the monumental and for mass obeisance to physically impeccable hero is common to both Fascist and Communist art” (Nichols, 1976, p. 40). Apparently, both: Communist and Nazi ideologists were well aware of what corresponds to people’s aesthetic anxieties.

This is the reason why totalitarian regimes, associated with political ideologies of Communism, Fascism, and Nazism, had made a point in heavily investing in art as the tool of propaganda – it is only when citizens are being united by the same aesthetically idealistic perception of surrounding reality that they can act as productive members of society, simply because such their perception inevitably prompts them to consider society’s well-being as deserving to be put above their personal interests.

Democratic / neo-Liberal governments, on the other hand, could not possibly be concerned about investing in art, as a socially unifying factor, because these governments pursue an entirely different agenda, as opposed to the agenda of totalitarian governments – an “atomization” of society down to its basic components, as it is only when citizens are being deprived of their sense of national belonging, that they will be more likely to “celebrate diversity” as their foremost priority.

This is the reason why realistic art, based on the principles of antique aesthetics is now being ostracised in Western countries as “outdated”, “unsophisticated” and “intolerant”; whereas, degenerative art is being praised to the sky as only the one that deserves admiration, which in its turn, results in such “masterpieces” as Malevich’s “Black Square” being sold for millions of dollars at auctions.

The fact that Liberal governments are now being solely preoccupied with the promotion of multiculturalism had drastically shifted these governments’ priorities. In societies where the practice of racial mixing has been officially legitimized, the utilization of art as the mean of strengthening government’s political authority is no longer possible, simply because people affected by such practice, tend to lose their sense of existential idealism, which in its turn, causes “ethnically unique” and intellectually marginalized white citizens to grow increasingly incapable of appreciating art.

Therefore, instead of investing in art, Liberal governments invest in entertainment. In its turn, this created a situation when the motto “bread and entertainment” now defines the existential mode of the majority of citizens in Western countries, just as it was the case in the Roman Empire, during the time of its decline.

It is not a secret that nowadays, the real art is being covered with the thick layer of dust in public museums, as we speak, and that many young people now have grown to refer to classical music as “music for old people” while being increasingly attracted to rap tunes and to drawing graffiti on the walls of public buildings as only the “artistic” pursuits worthy of their consideration. Moreover, the way in which Liberal governments encourage people to seek entertainment and to indulge in primitive consumerism, as the ultimate mean of diverting citizens’ attention from social and political issues that really do matter, points out the fact that these governments are being quiet as totalitarian as Nazi or Communist governments themselves.

In his book “Thinking with Things: Toward a New Vision of Art”, Esther Pasztory says: “In the twentieth century, with Nazism and Communism, these concepts cannot help but relate to the ideas of “totalitarian” and “democratic” governments. Problems arise as to what is actually totalitarian both in the present and projected back into the past. For example, in the minds of many Europeans, the “democratic” United States is really “totalitarian” as a result of soft commercial brainwashing” (Pasztory, 2005. p. 34).

However, Europeans would be much better off paying closer attention to their own governments – after all, American citizens’ freedom of speech is guaranteed by Constitution’s First Amendment, whereas citizens of the EU now enjoy even less freedom as it was the case under the totalitarian dictatorships of Fascism and National-Socialism. Nowadays, in such countries of EU as Germany, France, and Britain, people are being sentenced to lengthy terms in jail, simply because of having suggested that Jews were not only the ethnic group that had suffered during the course of WW2, with these countries’ governmental officials suggesting that there is nothing wrong with punishing citizens for their thoughts.

In his article “Former Soviet Dissident Warns For EU Dictatorship”, Paul Belien quotes a former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, who had suggested that slowly but surely, the European Union transforms itself into an equivalent of Soviet Union: “The Soviet Union used to be a state-run by ideology. Today’s ideology of the European Union is social-democratic, statist, and a big part of it is also political correctness. Look at this persecution of people like the Swedish pastor who was persecuted for several months because he said that the Bible does not approve of homosexuality. France passed the same law of hate speech concerning gays.

Britain is passing hate speech laws concerning race relations and now religious speech, and so on and so forth. (Belien, 2006). In other words, many today’s formally democratic countries are nothing but left-wing ideological dictatorships, even though citizens of these countries often do not even realize it. Given the fact that the concept of art is quite inseparable from the concept of “evil” euro-centrism, it appears to be only the matter of time, before hawks of political correctness would try to ban classical European art in its entirety, as such that promotes “intolerance”, and to declare the “art of graffiti” as the only legitimate way for citizens to express their aesthetic leanings.

It is important to understand that In multicultural countries, run by neo-Liberal governments, there can be no art by definition, simply because multiculturalism implies the absence of any objective criteria for the concept of artistic finesse (cultural relativism) – whatever is being graphically shocking enough, gets to be automatically declared as “sophistically artful”, because spiritually corrupted citizens are incapable of distinguishing art from cheep entertainment.

For example, Gunter Von Hagen skins people’s corpses and exhibits them in his “Body Worlds” galleries. Predictably enough, Western “progressive” Medias refer to intellectual by-products of Hagen’s mental illness as “art”. German photographer Sebastian Kempa takes pictures of thousands of naked people (specifically old and ugly ones) in a single setting, while referring to such his practice as “naked art”, etc.

There is nothing new about people’s mental depravity being confused with art. In ancient Carthage, which was ruled by financial oligarchs and which praised itself on being multicultural society (striking similarity with today’s Western societies), the publically staged killings of slaves (earlier equivalent of decadent Rome’s gladiator fights) were considered to be an art.

This is exactly the reason why we now cannot discuss particularities of Carthage’s cultural and artistic legacy – such legacy is simply non-existent. We all know what had happened to Carthage in the end, as well as we know what had happened to Roman Empire, once it began following Cartage’s footsteps. Therefore, it does not represent much of a challenge to predict what will eventually happen to Western civilization, if promoters of existential decadence are not being removed from position of political power.

People’s tendency to operate with such vaguely defined categories as “totalitarianism” and “democracy”, while trying to expose the essence of art’s relation to politics, could not possibly provide them with a deeper insight on the subject matter. As we have suggested earlier, there are many good reason to consider neo-Liberal form of political governing as being more totalitarian, as compared with Nazism, Fascism and Russian Communism. It is not the politics that define art, but vice versa.

Apparently, it is absolutely natural for mentally and physically healthy people to seek a higher purpose for their existence, which in its turn explains such an immense popularity of Fascist, Nazi and Communist governments with the masses and also the fact that these governments have had placed a heavy emphasis on popularization of antique aesthetic ideals among the citizens. Therefore, instead of referring to the forms of political governing as “totalitarian” and “democratic”, we would be much better off referring to them as “aesthetically totalitarian” and “anti-aesthetically totalitarian”.

Bibliography

Belien, P. (2006). Former Soviet Dissident Warns For EU Dictatorship. The Brussels Journal. Web.

Erjavec, A. & Grois, B. 2003. Postmodernism and the Postsocialist Condition: Politicized Art under Late Socialism. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Moore-Gilbert, B. J. 2002. The Arts in the 1970s: Cultural Closure?. London: Routledge.

Mosse, G. 1996. Fascist Aesthetics and Society: Some Considerations. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 245-252.

Naremore, J. 1991. Modernity and Mass Culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Nichols, B. 1976. Movies and Methods. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Pasztory, E. 2005. Thinking with Things: Toward a New Vision of Art. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Sawin, M. 1993. Art and Political Agendas. Art Journal, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 94-99.

Tal, U. 2004. Religion, Politics and Ideology in the Third Reich: Selected Essays. London: Routledge.