![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Without being killed or imprisoned…
While this proved to be an unpopular topic the first time I delved into it, I still personally think it’s a pretty interesting line of thinking. So here we go again! In my post about living in a totalitarian state, reader jlhart7 writes:
The fact that we’re talking about this without being killed or imprisoned and tortured means, as I see it, that we’re not in a totalitarian state right now in America. I think it’d be pretty damn easy to tell if you lived under real totalitarianism or not.
Not to pick on this commenter, but I’ve often heard this argument given as “proof” that we’re free to do and say as we please. With what we’ve been taught about how totalitarian governments typically operate, this tends to seem accurate. We are not being killed, imprisoned, or tortured for merely talking about these things. But is that all a totalitarian government consists of? Definitions seem to vary. Dictionary.com offers a rather succint answer:
a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed
While Wikipedia moves into a more gray area:
Common to all definitions is the mobilization of entire populations in support of the state and a political or religious ideology, and the intolerance of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, such as involvement with labour unions, churches or political parties. They also maintain themselves in political power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics.
Starting to sound familiar? No? Then you clearly haven’t been paying attention. I guess the question I was asking in my original post had more to do with the “brand image” of totalitarianism. The image all of us have been raised on is of the SS marching through the streets in formation, and the Gestapo doing random sweeps in the middle of the night. Part of me wonders if we haven’t gotten so caught up in the iconic power of these images that we haven’t noticed their much more subtle, much more real counterparts in our own world. Can you find them? What are they?
The question I’m really asking though is not: are we living in a totalitarian state? It is: what is a totalitarian state? Can one exist that tolerates dissent - heck, even encourages it (Without letting it get too out of hand of course)? If you’re running a government like this, wouldn’t it be easier and cheaper to run it on the sly, without anyone really believing it even exists?
If Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union had survived for 200+ years, what would it have looked like? Would people living there really even know they were living in a totalitarian state any more, or would the mechanisms of that lifestyle be so deeply engrained in their psyche’s as to be second-nature? Maybe Goethe’s old quote is really true: “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”
March 29th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
it seems that societies don`t last too long in the face of new technologies. they tend to cause catastrophic shock that shakes the foundations loose. the roman empire didn`t do too well as written information became culturally available. we aren`t doing so well because of computers and islam isn`t fairing so well either. the games of the ruling class are revealed by the new technology and it becomes too obvious that the emporor has no clothes. whether the politariat can do anything about this revelation isn`t as important as the revelation it`s self. the damage has been done. it may take generations for the effects to be revealed but the process has begun. look what the internet has done to the games of the catholic church for instance or voting irregularities in elections as just two examples. tianamen square is another.
March 29th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
Well I think it’s a difficult point to prove that the Roman Empire fell because of rising literacy. I’m not sure how you’d substantiate that.
But I do like your overall point, which seems to be: how do you maintain a guiding cultural myth in the face of increasing competition from other myths?
Similarly, as a culture, can you create a guiding cultural myth which doesn’t necessitate literal belief and consequent physical enforcement in order to maintain order?
March 29th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
As Ellul says, those who are the most propagandized are those who have the most exposure to media of propaganda. More media=greater saturation of propaganda. Thus, those who live in societies with “free speech” are less likely to realize they’re being propagandized.
Everyone always insists it’s mostly about freedom of speech. “As long as you can type this, we’re doing okay.” C’mon, that’s silly. “Freedom of speech” was a great rallying cry back in the days of kings, but now who cares about freedom of speech? We’re “free” to say whatever we’d like, and the Powers That Be simply ignore what is said– vide the current administration’s reaction to the various impotent protests against the war and whatnot. They’ve played the ol’ Hail Mary, looped right around the whole argument, learned how to zap the value right out of the whole “freedom of speech” silliness. It no longer signifies anything!
Welcome to the Invisible Aquarium!
Does that mean we live in a “totalitarian” state? I think jlhart7’s comment proves that we may just.
March 29th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
More from Ellul’s Propaganda:
————-
————-
March 29th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
This is idiotic. Its like saying “If you were really in an abusive relationship you wouldn’t be free to complain about how your husband treats you - you’d be chained up in the basement, or dead.”
March 29th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Best explanation ever!
March 29th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
On the question of “Can a totaltarian state tolerate dissent?”, I’m reminded of a series of books called “Bio of a Space Tyrant” by Piers Anthony, in which one man exercises supreme, dictatorial power, all the while being ripped to shreds by the editorial pages.
It’s not a bad series, even if the analogy is a little stretched.
March 29th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
In college, one of my professors insisted that Nazi Germany was not totalitarian, because citizens were mostly free to live their lives without interference from the state. This is debatable, but ironic, given that–as you note–the Nazis have provided us with most of our images of totalitarianism. BTW, this professor was Jewish and somewhere to the left of liberal, if you were wondering.
But is the U.S. totalitarian? Short answer: no. Longer answer: no, but certainly headed for authoritarian. What we do have: a government that regards its citizens as a problem; that spies on its citizens; that manages the flow of information and has its own propaganda/”news” outlet; that demonizes dissent; that fetishizes military power; that tortures enemies and those perceived as enemies, and so on. Not good, and could get much worse. But totalitarian? I want my jackboots and snappy uniforms!
March 30th, 2006 at 12:13 am
I’m personally tempted to say that those aren’t the signs of a *totalitarian* government - those are the signs of GOVERNMENT, period! It’s the whole necessary evil argument, which leads you to ask, how much evil is necessary?
March 30th, 2006 at 2:50 am
Insert the media into the equation, and you have *modern* totalitarism. Where the question is not “are you speaking freely?” but “how many people ar you speaking to?”.
In other words, there’s free speech as long as you are confined in a blog, in a book or in a leftist magazine.
Try the real free speech on TV, in front of millions of Joe sixpack, and you’ll get a bitter awakening.
March 30th, 2006 at 3:08 am
That’s an excellent point, I think. The question at some point becomes not what is free speech, but what is commercially viable speech?
Sure you can say whatever you want technically, but can you do so at a job interview or when you meet your girlfriend’s parents for the first time?
What if you own a newspaper or tv station which relies on revenue from advertisers who want to make sure continually that your content is appropriate for their ads?
As an aside: thinking about that makes me reconsider what the FCC is for. Perhaps it is designed to do just that: to make sure that companies who advertise on media outlets are getting their money’s worth, and aren’t having the advertisements framed by inappropriate content.
March 30th, 2006 at 11:59 am
The conversation we’re having here, we could even have in China, it’s so innocuous. But talk about overthrow, new governments, name names- that can and does bring down the wrath of the state. The FBI has my picture and file because I went to an anti-war protest in 1987 (and I’m sure it got bigger) A peace group I belonged to in Fresno was infiltrated by police. Food not bombs is on an anti-terrorism list, as are the Quakers (although that’s not new for them, they’ve been snooped on for a few hundred years). See what happens to kids who post lyrics about Bush, or (god forbid) stick a pushpin in his portrait…they get a visit from the man, and they’re lucky if they get to keep their computers, notebooks, etc. Scientists lose their jobs if they break silence about facvts the government doesn’t like. We have a government that planned a war thneir first year in power and has been allowed to keep every record a secret from the people who are forced to pay for it.
You can talk, but look what happens when you associate physically with people who think like you do- or carry a sign, or refuse to pay, or drink in the wrong place, have sex with the wrong person, marry the wrong person. You can have a gun, even twenty, if you wanna shoot birds with them..but practice a different sort of religiuon and see how fast they smoke you out. Try to live outside of the nine-to-five societysee if you get left alone. Hell, just try to be homeless and sleep through the night somewhere. We’re “free” only as long as we obey.
I could go on all day, but my basic point is, it’s not freedom to say “I don’t like this.” We only have that freedom as long as we’re not perceived as a threat by the powers. People shit talked Hitler all day long; it wasn’t a problem until they got noticed.
March 30th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
So then you’re saying it’s NOT totalitarian, right?
March 30th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
I don’t know, Tim, I guess that depends on how we define ‘totalitarian.’ It just has a different meaning in this age.. Personally, I feel squeezed, scrutinized, and watched. I feel that I would not fare well if my religion, my personal habits, or other things about me were known- and that’s coming from someone who is not exactly an outcast . I quit my last job because our school cooperated with the local police department in rounding up our students, herding them into the football feild, and searching them with dogs. NOBODY saw anything wrong with this, and it’s goes without saying that this was NOT undertaken at the fancier, ‘white’ school on the other side of town. I don’t know if this is ‘totalitarian,’ but it’s not free, either.
March 30th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Holy CRAP! That’s really crazy. I totally get where you’re coming from on that. Wow…
March 30th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
I can’t believe that no one has thought about the simplest analogy to all of this: Plato’s Cave Allegory. Would people living in a totalitarian state really even know they were living in a totalitarian state? Only after they left the cave. Thus, the goal is to acknowledge we are in the cave/totalitarian society, then plot our escape… if we want to.
Better yet: watch Logan’s Run. Forget about how dated the movie looks, and focus on the message of it.
March 31st, 2006 at 2:54 pm
I would suggest that we examine the disinction more tightly between Authoritarian and Totalitarian and say that once a certain level of complexity is acheived the form of government shifts into a different phase state to become totalitarian. The United States is tending towards a totalitarian system but is still in a late modern Authoritarian mode.
Mao and Stalin had totalitarian nations. The Reich was not totalitarian, merely Authoritarian.
The Germans still had the Western traditions of legalism behind them.
At present we for the most part do live in our home state (in the USA) and while the Federal government is layered into this arrangement it is still not a Federal crime to run a stop sign or have our elction of a Governor a Federal one.