In Friedrich and Brzezinski\u2019s \u201cTotalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy\u201d (1957), they posit that the two terms should be used interchangeably to define a regime that is led by a singular leader who agrees upon, if he himself does not create, all official state decisions. The leader is defined as an autokrator<\/i>: \u201cthe ruler accountable only to himself.\u201d (15) The main goal of a totalitarian leader, explained through the ideological-anthropological theory, is to attempt to create an utopian society through \u201ctotal control of the everyday life of its citizens.\u201d (16) To accomplish this vast goal, totalitarian rulers utilize the political tactic of \u201ctotalism\u201d, which attempts to completely restructure mass society through an all-encompassing ideology using state terror, a centralized government and economy, and finally, a monopoly on communications and weapons. Friedrich and Brzezinski elaborate that totalism is only successfully employed with the use of modern technological and organizational bureaucratic devices. In the eyes of the totalitarian ruler, his absolute leadership would transform his weak country into a highly advanced nation. Stalin himself said, as Friedrich and Brzezinski quote, that he believed his vision of Soviet totalitarian society created the \u201cperfect democracy\u201d. However, Friedrich and Brzezinski see autocratic totalitarianism as attempting to replace pure democratic societies with their \u201cperverted descendants\u201d. (p. 26) They concur that, \u201cthe effort at total control, while not achieving such control, has highly significant human effects.\u201d (17) As later historiographers would point out, this definition, among the first in the field, reduces totalitarianism in an overly-simplistic fashion. On a similar overly deconstructed note, they agree that fascism (here they include National Socialism) and communism, as the model totalitarian regimes led by Hitler and Stalin, are \u201cbasically alike\u201d. (19)<\/p>\n
On the other hand, Walter Lacqueur\u2019s more contemporary commentary piece \u201cIs There Now, or Has There Ever Been, Such a Thing as Totalitarianism?\u201d (1985) completely overly complicates the definition of totalitarianism. While he attempts to create a \u2018crude definition\u2019 declaring totalitarianism as \u201cany regime attracting 99% of the votes in an election\u201d, (1) he does not create any sort of valid conclusion of what totalitarianism is — or if it even exists at all. While never settling on his own definition of totalitarianism, what he contributes through this article is historiographical comparison of multiple historians\u2019 perspectives. In favor of Friedrich and Brzezinski\u2019s six components of totalitarianism, he prefers Bracher\u2019s four criteria, which he sees as the \u201cshorter and simpler\u201d as well as more accurate version, as he points out flaws in Friedrich and Brzezinski\u2019s theory. Further, Lacqueur supports Bracher\u2019s declaration of despotism and freedom as the \u201cfundamental dividing line in recent history\u201d. (3) Lacqueur then examines Linz\u2019s comparison of authoritarianism versus totalitarianism; he cites the main differences as authoritarianism allowing pluralism while lacking the state-sponsored ideology and forced mass political participation directed from above, both characteristic in totalitarian regimes. While he successfully synthesizes multiple perspectives on totalitarianism into one piece, what Lacquer really over complicates is his application of totalitarianism to communism and the Soviet Union. He asserts early on that totalitarianism may be applied correctly to the character of nazism but not<\/em> to the character of communism (2); he then spends a good amount of time deciding whether Lowenthal\u2019s fascism-communism comparison or Hassner\u2019s \u201cpost-totalitarianism authoritarianism\u201d definition better aptly fits the Soviet bloc experience. While Friedrich and Brzezinski\u2019s definition of totalitarianism is overly simplistic, at least it does not confuse through round-about arguments in the style of Lacqueur.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In Friedrich and Brzezinski\u2019s \u201cTotalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy\u201d (1957), they posit that the two terms should be used interchangeably to define a regime that is led by a singular leader who agrees upon, if he himself does not create, all … Continue reading