Is this how the USA becomes totalitarian?

[AppleDumplingHead]

I must say, the right's turn towards post-modernist rejection of meaning and truth was an unexpected one.

Sorry to interrupt your little po-mo love-in, but the shadow of history still matters.

K, I appreciate it matters to you. My Irish ancestors, on my mom's mom's side, a couple generations before, were disenfranchised by the English, lost land and were obligated to leave the country. I'd like you to please represent me to the English government, and I'd like 4 free years of education, food vouchers, free health care and a casino.

I'm sure you'll get right on that for me.

 

[Arwon]

I'd suggest maybe a better place to start is questioning why the mere discussion of the history and impact of slavery in the United States triggers you into this sort of hysterical defensive nonsense.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

I'd suggest maybe a better place to start is questioning why the mere discussion of the history and impact of slavery in the United States triggers you into this sort of hysterical defensive nonsense.

I was discussing how I genuinely feel about things. I thought that's what you wanted.

Actually, I think you were trying to get out of me that I'm some kind of hating far right klan member, and failing that, decided to use lame cliche to dismiss my valid viewpoint. You're just all tactics, man, no substance. Not really interested in playing your games anymore.

 

[AdrienIer]

ADH this was a discussion about whether the US was going to turn into a totalitarist regime. Now you've hijacked it so much that you brush off the question of whether systemic slavery can be considered totalitarist as a minor one. Start your own thread if you want to rant for pages about slavery.

To return to the original subject of this thread I don't think Trump will turn the US into a dictatorship, mainly because of his age. On the other hand it's likely that the US will be less of a free country when he leaves office. And the embolded racists will plague you for a generation.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

ADH this was a discussion about whether the US was going to turn into a totalitarist regime. Now you've hijacked it so much that you brush off the question of whether systemic slavery can be considered totalitarist as a minor one. Start your own thread if you want to rant for pages about slavery.

The original question is silly and I gave my answer on page two, " No, a percent of a population being disenfranchised does not make totalitarianism." I didn't start the slavery bit, and I thought people wanted to discuss it. I gave my two cents, the sore loser made his quips, and now you want to be the peanut gallery. Cool, man. I can be done talking about it for now, but at least, if you're going to patronize me, get the story straight, you know, the one with which I'm well versed as I was involved in it.

As you can see, I'm relatively new around here. I'd like to not be known as "that guy who thinks abject chattel slavery is pretty keen", so with all the accusation comments flying around, a person feels the need to be very clear and concise exactly what and how they believe. If people don't want to know what another people thinks or feels, just don't ask, and when you ask, don't act later like it wasn't requested or otherwise prompted. There's no point to playing those games.

 

[Arwon]

I would be inclined to say 100s of years of slavery is way more totalitarian than anything Trump can drum up, as much as I dislike him.

Still a very valid point.

 

[Yeekim]

When did the United States have "100s of years of slavery". Last I checked, 1783 to 1863 is 80 years. Maybe you're counting back to 1775 when the revolutionary war began... nope, still not over 100.

The areas which became US had first slaves arrive in 17th century. No need to be so aggressive over correcting a technicality...

I'm a bit lost are we arguing that generational genetic slavery in the United States wasn't a totalising system of physical/social/political control inflicted on those who experienced it?

The way I understand the word "totalitarian" is that it describes a system in which government seeks to "totally" control the "totality" of its population.
Pre-civil war US does not fit the bill. That is not to say it was better, just bad in a different way.
That's me trying to be polite in correcting what is arguably also a technicality, btw

 

[Arwon]

The key feature is totalising control. Totalitarianism isn't really so much about ideology directly, as it is about a mode of living in relation to a power that exercises or tries to exercise control over everything about life.

The aim is subordinating everything to a particular idea or goal, eliminating independent public space, reaching into the private space of individuals, isolating people from any method of relating to each other that isn't mediated by the governing force and its goals. We can speak of totalising or totalitarian systems in cults like Jonestown, for instance.

I'd suggest that slaves were not in any meaningful sense "governed" by the US with its constitution and bill of rights and the like, but were instead governed directly by the structures of slavery, of being owned as commodities.

The US Government in governing its free citizens was clearly nothing like a total system, of course. But the system governing slaves? A system reducing human beings to mere property, baked up by force of government, as well as by extragovernmental control and terror? Being owned and controlled as property, with no agency, no access to personhood, private spaces, public life, or even to familial bonds, reduced entirely to commodity to be used and disposed of by external forces... is all pretty directly analogous to life under a totalitarian state where one is entirely subordinate to whatever that state is trying to do.

Consider the comparable mortal terrors of fleeing antebellum slavery and fleeing a totalitarian state, for instance.

This is why I made reference to it as a totalising system as experienced by slaves, ie governing all aspects of life... rather than refer directly to totalitarian government. It's also why writers such as Hannah Arendt, when covering the subject of totalitarianism, make reference to the experience of slaves in exploring the concept.

 

[Yeekim]

This is why I made reference to it as a totalising system as experienced by slaves, ie governing all aspects of life... rather than refer directly to totalitarian government.

Fair enough.

 

[Tahuti]

The way I understand the word "totalitarian" is that it describes a system in which government seeks to "totally" control the "totality" of its population.
Pre-civil war US does not fit the bill. That is not to say it was better, just bad in a different way.

But the system governing slaves, which was backed up by force of government as well as by extragovernmental control and terror? Being owned and controlled as property, with no agency, no access to personhood, private spaces or a public life, or even to familial bonds, reduced entirely to commodity to be used and disposed of by external forces, is pretty directly analogous to life under a totalitarian state.

Totalitarianism requires complete government control over the media. That will almost certainly not happen under Trump. In fact, given how globalised our media landscape is through stuff like the world wide web and the export and import of particular forms of media, totalitarianism is incredibly hard to sustain nowadays. The only contemporary totalitarian regimes that come to mind would be North Korea, Eritrea and Turkmenistan.

It's worth noting that totalitarianism was made possible with advances in mass media which allowed governments at the same time to nationalise control over the media, which is why totalitarianism peaked in the decades around World War II, 1984 was depicted as having a similar level of technological development as the aforementioned period and contemporary totalitarian regimes are in fact as well stuck in the mid-20th century compared to Western Europe and North America. For instance, "talkies" (movies with sound) made movies culturally more exclusive, making them better suited to introdoctrinate specific populations. It was impractical to give real-time and live reports as we do now, so it was easier to control the flow of information too.

While there are parallels between a totalitarianism regime in regards to its citizens and slave holding in regards to slaves, it has to be noted that slaves had far easier access to information about alternatives to their current condition than did citizens of Nazi Germany or Stalinist states. Slave holders frequently recoursed to religion to maintain a degree of "mind control", totalitarian regimes relied on technological advances in media to do the same, which was arguably more effective. In the end, Stalinism in the USSR collapsed of infighting among its elites, not because Soviet citizens were able to open their minds, they only were once Krushev brought forth his thaw. Last but not least, totalitarian states employ democratic rethoric. This makes mind control through the media effective if you are able to bring an illusion of impartiality.

 

[Yeekim]

Totalitarianism requires complete government control over the media.

It has - imho successfully - being argued, that the alternative to monopoly on information is the overload of infomation.
If you can't control what the opposition is saying, drown them in noise and lies...

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, there are two authoritarian risks. The first is intentionally justifying profiling at a scope that's broad enough to be worrying. People, as a rule, have very little empathy for profiling and very little sympathy for when the profiling gets too brutal. Trump very clearly has cultural and racial bigotry at levels much higher than is reasonable, and there are vastly too many people who share those views. So, an institutional pogrom could really ratchet up the level of brutality.

As well, as a society, we have a weird bias as to how property rights work. Well, not weird, since it's reasonably common. Now, I think that Trump's proposed economic policies will shuttle wealth upwards, while 'spreading the wealth' at lower levels of the economic ladder. Some people will be better off, but in a more zero-sum way or even negative-sum way than we'd overall like. As a result of this wealth transfer, we're going to be forced to dance to the tune of the people who now control even more of the wealth. It won't be a dictatorship, but overall freedom will go down. And, if we object, we know whose side the police will be on.

 

[Tahuti]

Well, there are two authoritarian risks. The first is intentionally justifying profiling at a scope that's broad enough to be worrying. People, as a rule, have very little empathy for profiling and very little sympathy for when the profiling gets too brutal. Trump very clearly has cultural and racial bigotry at levels much higher than is reasonable, and there are vastly too many people who share those views. So, an institutional pogrom could really ratchet up the level of brutality.

As well, as a society, we have a weird bias as to how property rights work. Well, not weird, since it's reasonably common. Now, I think that Trump's proposed economic policies will shuttle wealth upwards, while 'spreading the wealth' at lower levels of the economic ladder. Some people will be better off, but in a more zero-sum way or even negative-sum way than we'd overall like. As a result of this wealth transfer, we're going to be forced to dance to the tune of the people who now control even more of the wealth. It won't be a dictatorship, but overall freedom will go down. And, if we object, we know whose side the police will be on.

The thing is where you are to put the dividing line between rethoric and actual policy. As a businessmen, Trump worked often with influential Muslims. Most Muslim countries - in particular the Arab gulf states - did not particularly disapprove when Trump became president elect. His anti-Muslim rethoric seemed primarily intended to shock liberals and jockey conservatives into supporting him. And as a political strategy, this was pretty successful.

Trump is not a liberal or a libertarian. He is a traditionalist conservative; he definitely is hostile to the middle class (the key constituency of the Democratic and Libertarian parties), in favour of both the working classes and large equity holders. I can to some extent see the advantage of that line of thinking and the cultural philosophy that will emerge from it, as it isn't as naively technophile as the supporters of the Californian ideology and Atari Democrats who perceded them. He will likely try to finish Obama's work in dropping WASP values in favour of Eurasian values. He is therefore not going to touch Obamacare; likely he will argue that it should continue exist because it was a Republican idea in the first place. Remember that Trump isn't a Tea Partier (anyone remember those?), he adopted populist rethoric for the purpose of getting elected, though he is a scion of a dynasty and that will determine to a significant extent his political philosophy. Perhaps Bismarckian is the right word for it.

 

[timtofly]

The pure fact of running the US as a business is totalitarian, unless it is one where all employees can have an equal say in the direction the company goes.

Technically a business can be as moral or ethical as the control of the company, or completely devoid of human rights, as in the infamous example presented earlier.

Personally imo, a company can be run just as easily as a commune, as it can as a totalitarian entity, but most would have to give up their moral high horse, for the good of all. It is the fear that most have on the instability of human nature that there is even the need for central totalitarian control.

The ironic part, is the establishment has convinced the masses that the most unstable candidate is going to be head of state. Those who have been deceptively increasing totalitarian thought into governmental control, are afraid a totalitarian nut job is going to ruin their totalitarian choke hold.

 

[Leonel]

We also heard the same rumbling, albeit from the other side, under the Obama administration.
Which is not to unjustly validate the fears of totalitarianism from either side of the aisle (nor to be dismissive of the just fears of totalitarianism from either side). Rather, it demonstrates that Americans are, as a rule, extremely apprehensive of our governmental systems and the rule of law. We instantly presume, largely but not entirely without justification, that anyone who has a different political ideology must be our antagonist. What’s more, there’s been a decided trend towards seeing anyone who is critical of a person’s ideology must be supporting the other side. Dislike Clinton? You must support Trump. Cautious about Trump? Obviously, you support Clinton. This presumption of enmity stymies honest discussion both between the aisles and within the parties.
If we define totalitarianism as a unitary system of governance then these trends towards fractiousness suggest we are heading in quite another direction altogether.

Absolutely right. I even remember seeing a newspaper around Seattle that had "Is Bush the Anti-Christ?" as the main headline. Granted it was probably The Stranger, but that still speaks to the level of fear people had about Bush becoming Supreme Fuhrer and as you point out, people even accused Obama of being the Anti-Christ. You also brought up some very good points when pointing out totalitarianism as a unitary system, which the US certainly is not and the Republican's APPEAR to have been fighting against the notion of a more unitary system of governing on the Federal level for the past 8 years.

 

[Akka]

The key feature is totalising control. Totalitarianism isn't really so much about ideology directly, as it is about a mode of living in relation to a power that exercises or tries to exercise control over everything about life.

The aim is subordinating everything to a particular idea or goal, eliminating independent public space, reaching into the private space of individuals, isolating people from any method of relating to each other that isn't mediated by the governing force and its goals. We can speak of totalising or totalitarian systems in cults like Jonestown, for instance.

It's somewhat funny, because I actually think that this very kind of totalitarianism is already on the rise and especially from the US, but actually has nothing to do with Trump. I see it coming from the technological encroaching in our lives, driven by big data companies and the lack of care of the regular man, who doesn't realize just how much he's allowing himself to be subjugated and just shrug with a "I've nothing to hide/they already know everything they want/whatever argument which allow to lazily let it pass.

In other words : totalitarism is growing, but it's coming from the free-market, technology and a general contempt for consumer rights and an even higher contempt about respecting private life.

 

[Gori the Grey]

It's somewhat funny, because I actually think that this very kind of totalitarianism is already on the rise and especially from the US, but actually has nothing to do with Trump. I see it coming from the technological encroaching in our lives, driven by big data companies and the lack of care of the regular man, who doesn't realize just how much he's allowing himself to be subjugated and just shrug with a "I've nothing to hide/they already know everything they want/whatever argument which allow to lazily let it pass.

In other words : totalitarism is growing, but it's coming from the free-market, technology and a general contempt for consumer rights and an even higher contempt about respecting private life.

I heard recently that the biggest purchaser of that big data that a technology driven free-market generates is the US government. I can't remember the source, so I can't speak to how credible it is. But it seemed plausible to me. We'll turn over all our personal information to Facebook. The US govt buys it. Now the govt knows more than it could ever have acquired on its own. So it may be a combined market-government totalitarianism that emerges. The government brings armies as its side of the deal.

 

[Tahuti]

It's somewhat funny, because I actually think that this very kind of totalitarianism is already on the rise and especially from the US, but actually has nothing to do with Trump. I see it coming from the technological encroaching in our lives, driven by big data companies and the lack of care of the regular man, who doesn't realize just how much he's allowing himself to be subjugated and just shrug with a "I've nothing to hide/they already know everything they want/whatever argument which allow to lazily let it pass.

In other words : totalitarism is growing, but it's coming from the free-market, technology and a general contempt for consumer rights and an even higher contempt about respecting private life.

While I honestly find the encroachment of our privacy by companies such as Google sketchy, the flipside is that behaviors and discussion topics previously held to be taboo will likely become more discussable as large corporations and governments will become aware how widespread those actually are and realise it is futile to deal with it. The real danger comes from the commodification of such.

 

[Bootstoots]

My gut feeling: this isn't how the USA becomes totalitarian. This is how the USA gets Berlusconified, with a dash of Orban as well.

 

[Tahuti]

My gut feeling: this isn't how the USA becomes totalitarian. This is how the USA gets Berlusconified, with a dash of Orban as well.

Berlusconi, and in a similar vein Trump, Putin and Netanyahu are far cry from totalitarians such as Stalin indeed. In fact, one may wonder if it is not perhaps for the best that leaders such as them exist and get elected. They appeal to our instincts, desires and increase competition within their societies. They often induce a culture of patronage if such did not exist already. They decrease economic effiency in favour of a communal, party-hardy outlook that isn't based on a solid ideology and appreciate the imperfections of their societies, making them very human leaders.

They soothe their constituencies with pleasurable rethoric, which becomes an art form on its own. In terms of temperament, they are the diametric opposites of leaders such as Margeret Thatcher, Lee Kuan Yew or Deng Xiaoping in that they aren't boring clerks gunning for effiency or reform at all costs. Outside of politics, they would probably would be excellent nightclub owners. Their appeal lies in that they manage to make politics fun, at times comedic, yet still manage to be effective in representing the political interests of their constituencies. Just as countries need reformers at times, as individuals need to look after life needs and self-discipline, countries also need leaders like them, just as individuals like to go for a night out drinking.