АвтоАвтоматизацияАрхитектураАстрономияАудитБиологияБухгалтерияВоенное делоГенетикаГеографияГеологияГосударствоДомДругоеЖурналистика и СМИИзобретательствоИностранные языкиИнформатикаИскусствоИсторияКомпьютерыКулинарияКультураЛексикологияЛитератураЛогикаМаркетингМатематикаМашиностроениеМедицинаМенеджментМеталлы и СваркаМеханикаМузыкаНаселениеОбразованиеОхрана безопасности жизниОхрана ТрудаПедагогикаПолитикаПравоПриборостроениеПрограммированиеПроизводствоПромышленностьПсихологияРадиоРегилияСвязьСоциологияСпортСтандартизацияСтроительствоТехнологииТорговляТуризмФизикаФизиологияФилософияФинансыХимияХозяйствоЦеннообразованиеЧерчениеЭкологияЭконометрикаЭкономикаЭлектроникаЮриспунденкция

The Origins of Totalitarianism

Читайте также:
  1. Artistic processing of bone and horn
  2. Campaign Traits
  3. D) Choose one of the words to complete the sentences
  4. Definition, History and Significance of Simultaneous Interpretation
  5. Fibres Information
  6. Government and People
  7. Henry Hitchings
  8. Holidays in the USA.
  9. Psychological Problems of Simultaneous Interpretation
  10. Slow travel on the French canals.
  11. The Cambridge University Press
  12. The history of the English language.

The Origins of Totalitarianism (German Elemente und Ursprünge totaler Herrschaft, i.e. Elements and origins of totalitarian rule) is a book byHannah Arendt which describes and analyzes the two major totalitarian movements of the 20th century, Nazism and Stalinism. Its original title was to have been 'The Burden of Our Times', and it was published as The Burden of Our Time [ sic ] in Britain in 1951.[1] It was recognized upon its 1951 publication as the comprehensive account of its subject and was later hailed as a classic by the Times Literary Supplement.

This book continues to be one of the definitive philosophical analyses of totalitarianism, at least in its 20th century form. Arendt dedicated the book to her husband Heinrich Blücher.

History

The book describes the rise of antisemitism in central and western Europe in the early and middle 19th century and continues with an examination of the New Imperialism period from 1884 to the outbreak of World War I. Although Arthur de Gobineau's An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races (1853–1855) constitutes the first elaboration of "biological racism", as opposed to Henri de Boulainvilliers' anti-patriotic and anti-nationalist racism, Hannah Arendt traces the emergence of modern racism as an ideology to the Boers', starting in particular during the Great Trek in the first half of the 19th century, and qualifies it as an "ideological weapon for imperialism".

Along with bureaucracy, which was experimented with in Egypt by Lord Cromer, Arendt says that racism was the main trait of colonialist imperialism, itself characterized by its unlimited expansion (as illustrated by Cecil Rhodes). This unlimited expansion necessarily opposed itself and was hostile to the territorially delimited nation-state. Arendt traces the roots of modern imperialism to the accumulation of excess capital in European nation-states during the 19th century. This capital required overseas investments outside of Europe to be productive and political control had to be expanded overseas to protect the investments. She then examines "continental imperialism" (pan-Germanism and pan-Slavism) and the emergence of "movements" substituting themselves to the political parties. These movements are hostile to the state and antiparliamentarist and gradually institutionalize anti-Semitism and other kinds of racism. Arendt concludes that while Italian fascism was anationalist authoritarian movement, Nazism and Stalinism were totalitarian movements that sought to eliminate all restraints upon the power of the State.

Final section

The book's final section is devoted to describing the mechanics of totalitarian movements, focusing on Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. Here, Arendt discusses the transformation ofclasses into masses, the role of propaganda in dealing with the non-totalitarian world, and the use of terror, essential to this form of government. Totalitarian movements are fundamentally different from autocratic regimes, says Arendt, insofar as autocratic regimes seek only to gain absolute political power and to outlaw opposition, while totalitarian regimes seek to dominate every aspect of everyone's life as a prelude to world domination. Arendt discusses the use of front organizations, fake governmental agencies, and esoteric doctrines as a means of concealing the radical nature of totalitarian aims from the non-totalitarian world. A final section added to the second edition of the book 1958 suggests that individual isolation and loneliness are preconditions for totalitariandomination.

Reception

Le Monde placed the book among the 100 best books of any kind of the 20th century, while the National Review ranked it #15 on its list of the 100 best non-fiction books of the century.[2] TheIntercollegiate Studies Institute listed it among the 50 best non-fiction books of the century.[3] The book made a major impact on Norman Podhoretz, who compared the pleasure of reading it to that of reading a great poem or novel.[4]

15. Authoritarian regimes.

Authoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority as well as the administration of said authority. In politics, an authoritarian government is one in which political authority is concentrated in a small group of politicians.

Characteristics

Authoritarianism is characterized by highly concentrated and centralized power maintained by political repression and the exclusion of potential challengers. It uses political parties and mass organizations to mobilize people around the goals of the regime.[2]

Authoritarianism emphasizes arbitrary law rather than the rule of law, it often includes election rigging, political decisions being made by a select group of officials behind closed doors, a bureaucracy that sometimes operates independently of rules,[ dubious discuss ] which does not properly supervise elected officials, and fails to serve the concerns of the constituencies they purportedly serve. Authoritarianism also tends to embrace the informal and unregulated exercise of political power, a leadership that is "self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among competitors," the arbitrary deprivation of civil liberties, and little tolerance for meaningful opposition.[2]

A range of social controls also attempt to stifle civil society, while political stability is maintained by control over and support of the armed forces, a bureaucracy staffed by the regime, and creation of allegiance through various means of socialization and indoctrination.[2]

Authoritarian political systems may be weakened through "inadequate performance to demands of the people."[2] Vestal writes that the tendency to respond to challenges to authoritarianism through tighter control instead of adaptation is a significant weakness, and that this overly rigid approach fails to "adapt to changes or to accommodate growing demands on the part of the populace or even groups within the system."[2] Because the legitimacy of the state is dependent on performance, authoritarian states that fail to adapt may collapse.[2]

Authoritarianism is marked by "indefinite political tenure" of the ruler or ruling party (often in a single-party state) or other authority.[2] The transition from an authoritarian system to a more democratic form of government is referred to as democratization.[2]

John Duckitt of the University of the Witwatersrand suggests a link between authoritarianism and collectivism, asserting that both stand in opposition toindividualism.[3] Duckitt writes that both authoritarianism and collectivism submerge individual rights and goals to group goals, expectations and conformities.[4]Others argue that collectivism, properly defined, has a basis of consensus decision-making, the opposite of authoritarianism.

16. Open the meaning of civil society.

The meaning of the term civil society is contested. It is sometimes considered to include the family and the private sphere, and referred to as the "third sector" of society, distinct from government and business.[1] Dictionary.com's 21st Century Lexicon defines civil society as 1) the aggregate of non-governmental organizations and institutions that manifest interests and will of citizens or 2) individuals and organizations in a society which are independent of the government.[2] Sometimes the term is used in the more general sense of "the elements such as freedom of speech, an independent judiciary, etc, that make up a democratic society" (Collins English Dictionary).[3]

The term entered public discourse in the United States and around the world in the 1990s in effect of intensive work of communist propaganda in Poland.[4][5]However its tradition is much richer and longstanding.

Volunteering is often considered a defining characteristic of the organizations that constitute civil society, which in turn are often called NGOs, or NPOs. Most authorities have in mind the realm of public participation in voluntary associations, trade unions and the like,[6] but it is not necessary to belong to all of these to be a part of civil society.


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |

Поиск по сайту:



Все материалы представленные на сайте исключительно с целью ознакомления читателями и не преследуют коммерческих целей или нарушение авторских прав. Студалл.Орг (0.004 сек.)