Changes

Totalitarian regimes or [[movements]] maintain themselves in political [[power]] by means of an official all-embracing [[ideology]] and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass [[media]], a single party that controls the state, [[personality]] [[cult]]s, control over the [[economy]], regulation and restriction of free [[discussion]] and [[criticism]], the use of mass [[surveillance]], and widespread use of state [[terrorism]].

Totalitarian regimes or [[movements]] maintain themselves in political [[power]] by means of an official all-embracing [[ideology]] and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass [[media]], a single party that controls the state, [[personality]] [[cult]]s, control over the [[economy]], regulation and restriction of free [[discussion]] and [[criticism]], the use of mass [[surveillance]], and widespread use of state [[terrorism]].

<center>For lessons on the related [[topic]] of '''''[[Nationalism]]''''', follow [http://192.169.231.138/nordan/new_wiki/index.php?title=Category:Nationalism '''''this link'''''].</center>

<center>For lessons on the related [[topic]] of '''''[[Nationalism]]''''', follow [https://192.169.231.138/nordan/new_wiki/index.php?title=Category:Nationalism '''''this link'''''].</center>

==Etymology==

==Etymology==

The notion of Totalitarianism as "[[total]]" political power by state was formulated in 1923 by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Amendola Giovanni Amendola] who described Italian Fascism as a system [[Exceptionalism|fundamentally different]] from conventional dictatorships.[4] The term was later assigned a positive [[meaning]] in the writings of Giovanni Gentile, Italy’s most prominent [[philosopher]] and leading [[theorist]] of fascism. He used the term “totalitario” to refer to the [[structure]] and goals of the new state. The new state was to provide the “total representation of the nation and total [[guidance]] of national goals.”[5] He described totalitarianism as a [[society]] in which the [[ideology]] of the state had [[influence]], if not power, over most of its [[citizens]].[6] According to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini Benito Mussolini], this system politicizes everything [[spiritual]] and human:[4]

The notion of Totalitarianism as "[[total]]" political power by state was formulated in 1923 by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Amendola Giovanni Amendola] who described Italian Fascism as a system [[Exceptionalism|fundamentally different]] from conventional dictatorships.[4] The term was later assigned a positive [[meaning]] in the writings of Giovanni Gentile, Italy’s most prominent [[philosopher]] and leading [[theorist]] of fascism. He used the term “totalitario” to refer to the [[structure]] and goals of the new state. The new state was to provide the “total representation of the nation and total [[guidance]] of national goals.”[5] He described totalitarianism as a [[society]] in which the [[ideology]] of the state had [[influence]], if not power, over most of its [[citizens]].[6] According to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini Benito Mussolini], this system politicizes everything [[spiritual]] and human:[4]

<blockquote>"Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."</blockquote>

<blockquote>"Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."</blockquote>

==Difference between authoritarian and totalitarian states==

==Difference between authoritarian and totalitarian states==

The term 'an authoritarian regime' denotes a state in which the single [[power]] holder - an [[individual]] 'dictator', a committee or a junta - monopolizes political power. The term 'Authoritarian' refers to the [[structure]] of [[government]] rather than to [[society]]. However a totalitarian regime does much more. It attempts to control virtually all aspects of the social life including [[economy]], [[education]], [[art]], [[science]], [[private]] life and [[moral]]s of [[citizens]]. "The officially proclaimed ideology penetrates into every nook and cranny of society; its [[ambition]] is total."[4]

The term 'an authoritarian regime' denotes a state in which the single [[power]] holder - an [[individual]] 'dictator', a committee or a junta - monopolizes political power. The term 'Authoritarian' refers to the [[structure]] of [[government]] rather than to [[society]]. However a totalitarian regime does much more. It attempts to control virtually all aspects of the social life including [[economy]], [[education]], [[art]], [[science]], [[private]] life and [[moral]]s of [[citizens]]. "The officially proclaimed ideology penetrates into every nook and cranny of society; its [[ambition]] is total."[4]

==Examples of the term's use==

==Examples of the term's use==

One of the first to use the term "totalitarianism" in the [[English]] language was the Austrian writer [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Borkenau Franz Borkenau] in his 1938 book ''The Communist International'', in which he commented that more united the Soviet and German dictatorships than divided them.[7] Isabel Paterson, in ''The God of the Machine'' (1943), used the term in connection with the [[collectivist]] societies of the Soviet Union and National Socialist Germany.

One of the first to use the term "totalitarianism" in the [[English]] language was the Austrian writer [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Borkenau Franz Borkenau] in his 1938 book ''The Communist International'', in which he commented that more united the Soviet and German dictatorships than divided them.[7] Isabel Paterson, in ''The God of the Machine'' (1943), used the term in connection with the [[collectivist]] societies of the Soviet Union and National Socialist Germany.

During a 1945 lecture series entitled ''The Soviet Impact on the Western World'' (published as a book in 1946), the pro-Soviet British historian E. H. Carr claimed that "The trend away from [[individualism]] and towards totalitarianism is everywhere unmistakable", and that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism-Leninism Marxism-Leninism] was much the most successful type of totalitarianism, as proved by Soviet industrial [[growth]] and the Red Army's role in defeating Germany. Only the "blind and incurable" could ignore the trend towards totalitarianism, said Carr.[8]

During a 1945 lecture series entitled ''The Soviet Impact on the Western World'' (published as a book in 1946), the pro-Soviet British historian E. H. Carr claimed that "The trend away from [[individualism]] and towards totalitarianism is everywhere unmistakable", and that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism-Leninism Marxism-Leninism] was much the most successful type of totalitarianism, as proved by Soviet industrial [[growth]] and the Red Army's role in defeating Germany. Only the "blind and incurable" could ignore the trend towards totalitarianism, said Carr.[8]

Sir [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper Karl Popper], in ''The Open Society and Its Enemies'' (1945) and ''The Poverty of Historicism'' (1961), articulated an influential [[critique]] of totalitarianism: in both works, he contrasted the "open society" of liberal [[democracy]] with totalitarianism, and argued that the latter is grounded in the [[belief]] that history moves toward an immutable future, in accordance with knowable laws.

Sir [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper Karl Popper], in ''The Open Society and Its Enemies'' (1945) and ''The Poverty of Historicism'' (1961), articulated an influential [[critique]] of totalitarianism: in both works, he contrasted the "open society" of liberal [[democracy]] with totalitarianism, and argued that the latter is grounded in the [[belief]] that history moves toward an immutable future, in accordance with knowable laws.

In ''[http://www.archive.org/details/originsoftotalit00aren The Origins of Totalitarianism]'', [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Arendt Hannah Arendt] argued that Nazi and State communist regimes were new forms of [[government]], and not merely updated versions of the old [[Tyranny|tyrannies]]. According to Arendt, the source of the mass appeal of totalitarian regimes is their [[ideology]], which provides a comforting, single answer to the [[mysteries]] of the past, present, and future. For [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism Nazism], all [[history]] is the history of [[Race|racial]] struggle; and, for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism Marxism], all history is the history of class struggle. Once that premise is accepted, all [[actions]] of the state could be justified by appeal to Nature or the Law of History and justify their establishment of authoritarian state apparatus.[9]

In ''[https://www.archive.org/details/originsoftotalit00aren The Origins of Totalitarianism]'', [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Arendt Hannah Arendt] argued that Nazi and State communist regimes were new forms of [[government]], and not merely updated versions of the old [[Tyranny|tyrannies]]. According to Arendt, the source of the mass appeal of totalitarian regimes is their [[ideology]], which provides a comforting, single answer to the [[mysteries]] of the past, present, and future. For [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism Nazism], all [[history]] is the history of [[Race|racial]] struggle; and, for [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism Marxism], all history is the history of class struggle. Once that premise is accepted, all [[actions]] of the state could be justified by appeal to Nature or the Law of History and justify their establishment of authoritarian state apparatus.[9]

Scholars describe totalitarianism in slightly different ways. They all agree, however, that totalitarianism seeks to mobilize entire [[population]]s in support of an [[Formal|official]] [[state]] [[ideology]], and is intolerant of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, entailing repression or state control of [[business]], labour unions, churches or political parties.

Scholars describe totalitarianism in slightly different ways. They all agree, however, that totalitarianism seeks to mobilize entire [[population]]s in support of an [[Formal|official]] [[state]] [[ideology]], and is intolerant of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, entailing repression or state control of [[business]], labour unions, churches or political parties.

The political scientists Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski were primarily responsible for expanding the usage of the term in [[university]] [[social science]] and [[professional]] [[research]], reformulating it as a [[paradigm]] for the communist Soviet Union as well as fascist regimes. For Friedrich and Brzezinski, the defining elements were intended to be taken as a mutually supportive [[organic]] [[entity]] composed of the following: an elaborating guiding ideology; a single mass party, typically led by a dictator; a system of [[terror]]; a [[monopoly]] of the means of [[communication]] and [[physical]] [[force]]; and central direction, and control of the economy through state planning. Such regimes had initial origins in the [[chaos]] that followed in the wake of [[World War I]], at which point the sophistication of modern weapons and communications enabled totalitarian movements to consolidate power.

The political scientists Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski were primarily responsible for expanding the usage of the term in [[university]] [[social science]] and [[professional]] [[research]], reformulating it as a [[paradigm]] for the communist Soviet Union as well as fascist regimes. For Friedrich and Brzezinski, the defining elements were intended to be taken as a mutually supportive [[organic]] [[entity]] composed of the following: an elaborating guiding ideology; a single mass party, typically led by a dictator; a system of [[terror]]; a [[monopoly]] of the means of [[communication]] and [[physical]] [[force]]; and central direction, and control of the economy through state planning. Such regimes had initial origins in the [[chaos]] that followed in the wake of [[World War I]], at which point the sophistication of modern weapons and communications enabled totalitarian movements to consolidate power.

The German historian [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Dietrich_Bracher Karl Dietrich Bracher], whose work is primarily concerned with Nazi Germany, [[argues]] that the "totalitarian [[typology]]" as developed by Friedrich and Brzezinski is an excessively inflexible [[model]], and failed to consider the “[[Rebellion|revolutionary]] [[dynamic]]” that Bracher asserts is at the [[heart]] of totalitarianism.[10] Bracher maintains that the [[essence]] of totalitarianism is the total claim to control and remake all aspects of [[society]] combined with an all-embracing [[ideology]], the value on authoritarian [[leadership]], and the pretence of the common [[identity]] of state and society, which distinguished the totalitarian "closed" understanding of [[politics]] from the "open" democratic understanding.[11] Unlike the Friedrich-Brzezinski definition Bracher argued that totalitarian regimes did not require a single leader and could [[function]] with a [[collective]] [[leadership]], which led the American historian [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Laqueur Walter Laqueur] to argue that Bracher's definition seemed to fit [[reality]] better then the Friedrich-Brzezinski definition.[12]

The German historian [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Dietrich_Bracher Karl Dietrich Bracher], whose work is primarily concerned with Nazi Germany, [[argues]] that the "totalitarian [[typology]]" as developed by Friedrich and Brzezinski is an excessively inflexible [[model]], and failed to consider the “[[Rebellion|revolutionary]] [[dynamic]]” that Bracher asserts is at the [[heart]] of totalitarianism.[10] Bracher maintains that the [[essence]] of totalitarianism is the total claim to control and remake all aspects of [[society]] combined with an all-embracing [[ideology]], the value on authoritarian [[leadership]], and the pretence of the common [[identity]] of state and society, which distinguished the totalitarian "closed" understanding of [[politics]] from the "open" democratic understanding.[11] Unlike the Friedrich-Brzezinski definition Bracher argued that totalitarian regimes did not require a single leader and could [[function]] with a [[collective]] [[leadership]], which led the American historian [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Laqueur Walter Laqueur] to argue that Bracher's definition seemed to fit [[reality]] better then the Friedrich-Brzezinski definition.[12]

Eric Hoffer in his book ''The True Believer'' argues that [[mass movements]] like communism, Fascism and Nazism had a common trait in picturing Western democracies and their values as decadent, with people "too soft, too [[pleasure]]-loving and too selfish" to [[sacrifice]] for a higher cause, which for them implies an inner [[moral]] and [[biological]] decay. He further claims that those movements offered the prospect of a [[glorious]] future to frustrated people, enabling them to find a [[refuge]] from the lack of [[personal]] accomplishments in their [[individual]] [[existence]]. The individual is then assimilated into a compact [[collective]] body and "[[fact]]-proof screens from reality" are established.[13]

Eric Hoffer in his book ''The True Believer'' argues that [[mass movements]] like communism, Fascism and Nazism had a common trait in picturing Western democracies and their values as decadent, with people "too soft, too [[pleasure]]-loving and too selfish" to [[sacrifice]] for a higher cause, which for them implies an inner [[moral]] and [[biological]] decay. He further claims that those movements offered the prospect of a [[glorious]] future to frustrated people, enabling them to find a [[refuge]] from the lack of [[personal]] accomplishments in their [[individual]] [[existence]]. The individual is then assimilated into a compact [[collective]] body and "[[fact]]-proof screens from reality" are established.[13]

In the [[social sciences]], the approach of Friedrich and Brzezinski came under [[criticism]] from [[scholars]] who argued that the Soviet system, both as a political and as a social entity, was in fact better understood in terms of interest [[groups]], competing elites, or even in class terms (using the [[concept]] of the nomenklatura as a vehicle for a new ruling class).[14] These critics pointed to [[evidence]] of popular support for the regime and widespread dispersion of power, at least in the implementation of [[policy]], among sectoral and regional authorities. For some followers of this 'pluralist' approach, this was [[evidence]] of the ability of the regime to adapt to include new demands. However, proponents of the totalitarian model claimed that the failure of the system to [[survive]] showed not only its inability to adapt but the mere [[formal]]ity of supposed popular participation.

In the [[social sciences]], the approach of Friedrich and Brzezinski came under [[criticism]] from [[scholars]] who argued that the Soviet system, both as a political and as a social entity, was in fact better understood in terms of interest [[groups]], competing elites, or even in class terms (using the [[concept]] of the nomenklatura as a vehicle for a new ruling class).[14] These critics pointed to [[evidence]] of popular support for the regime and widespread dispersion of power, at least in the implementation of [[policy]], among sectoral and regional authorities. For some followers of this 'pluralist' approach, this was [[evidence]] of the ability of the regime to adapt to include new demands. However, proponents of the totalitarian model claimed that the failure of the system to [[survive]] showed not only its inability to adapt but the mere [[formal]]ity of supposed popular participation.

The notion of "post-totalitarianism" was first put forward by the German [[Political Science|political scientist]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_L%C3%B6wenthal Richard Löwenthal], who argued that the Soviet Union in the years after [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin Stalin]’s [[death]] in 1953 saw the emergence of a system Löwenthal called variously "authoritarian bureaucratic oligarchy" or “post-totalitarian authoritarianism”.[15] Writing in 1960, Löwenthal contended the development of “post-totalitarianism” in the Soviet Union and its satellites in Eastern Europe meant "Those countries have not gone from [[tyranny]] to [[freedom]], but from massive [[terror]] to a rule of meanness, ensuring stability at the risk of stagnation".[15]

The notion of "post-totalitarianism" was first put forward by the German [[Political Science|political scientist]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_L%C3%B6wenthal Richard Löwenthal], who argued that the Soviet Union in the years after [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin Stalin]’s [[death]] in 1953 saw the emergence of a system Löwenthal called variously "authoritarian bureaucratic oligarchy" or “post-totalitarian authoritarianism”.[15] Writing in 1960, Löwenthal contended the development of “post-totalitarianism” in the Soviet Union and its satellites in Eastern Europe meant "Those countries have not gone from [[tyranny]] to [[freedom]], but from massive [[terror]] to a rule of meanness, ensuring stability at the risk of stagnation".[15]

Afterwards, the [[theory]] of "post-totalitarianism" was expanded upon by political scientist Juan Linz. For certain commentators, such as Linz and Alfred Stepan, the Soviet Union entered a new [[phase]] after the abandonment of mass [[terror]] upon Stalin's death. Discussion of "post-totalitarianism" featured prominently in [[debates]] about the reformability and durability of the Soviet system in comparative [[politics]].

Afterwards, the [[theory]] of "post-totalitarianism" was expanded upon by political scientist Juan Linz. For certain commentators, such as Linz and Alfred Stepan, the Soviet Union entered a new [[phase]] after the abandonment of mass [[terror]] upon Stalin's death. Discussion of "post-totalitarianism" featured prominently in [[debates]] about the reformability and durability of the Soviet system in comparative [[politics]].

From a historical angle, the totalitarian [[concept]] has been criticized. Historians of the Nazi period inclined towards a functionalist [[interpretation]] of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third Reich Third Reich] such as Martin Broszat, Hans Mommsen and Ian Kershaw have been very hostile or lukewarm towards the totalitarianism concept, arguing that the Nazi regime was far too disorganized to be considered as totalitarian.[16]

From a historical angle, the totalitarian [[concept]] has been criticized. Historians of the Nazi period inclined towards a functionalist [[interpretation]] of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third Reich Third Reich] such as Martin Broszat, Hans Mommsen and Ian Kershaw have been very hostile or lukewarm towards the totalitarianism concept, arguing that the Nazi regime was far too disorganized to be considered as totalitarian.[16]

In the field of Soviet history, the concept has disparaged by the "revisionist" school, a group of mostly American left-wing historians, some of whose more prominent members are Sheila Fitzpatrick, Jerry F. Hough, William McCagg, Robert W. Thurston, and J. Arch Getty.[17] Though their [[individual]] [[interpretations]] [[Difference|differ]], the revisionists have argued that the Soviet state under Stalin was institutionally weak, that the level of terror was much exaggerated, and that to the extent it occurred, it [[reflected]] the weaknesses rather the strengths of the Soviet state.[17] Fitzpatrick argued that since to the extent that there was terror in the Soviet Union, since it provided for increased social mobility, and thus far from being a terrorized [[society]], most people in the Soviet Union supported Stalin's purges as a [[chance]] for a better life.[18]

In the field of Soviet history, the concept has disparaged by the "revisionist" school, a group of mostly American left-wing historians, some of whose more prominent members are Sheila Fitzpatrick, Jerry F. Hough, William McCagg, Robert W. Thurston, and J. Arch Getty.[17] Though their [[individual]] [[interpretations]] [[Difference|differ]], the revisionists have argued that the Soviet state under Stalin was institutionally weak, that the level of terror was much exaggerated, and that to the extent it occurred, it [[reflected]] the weaknesses rather the strengths of the Soviet state.[17] Fitzpatrick argued that since to the extent that there was terror in the Soviet Union, since it provided for increased social mobility, and thus far from being a terrorized [[society]], most people in the Soviet Union supported Stalin's purges as a [[chance]] for a better life.[18]

Writing in 1987, Walter Laqueur commented that the revisionists in the field of Soviet history were [[guilty]] of confusing popularity with [[morality]], and of making highly embarrassing and not very convincing [[arguments]] against the concept of the Soviet Union as totalitarian state.[19] Laqueur argued the revisionists' arguments with regards to Soviet history were highly similar to the arguments made by Ernst Nolte in regards to German history.[19] Laqueur asserted that concepts such as modernization were inadequate tools for explaining Soviet history while totalitarianism was not.[20]

Writing in 1987, Walter Laqueur commented that the revisionists in the field of Soviet history were [[guilty]] of confusing popularity with [[morality]], and of making highly embarrassing and not very convincing [[arguments]] against the concept of the Soviet Union as totalitarian state.[19] Laqueur argued the revisionists' arguments with regards to Soviet history were highly similar to the arguments made by Ernst Nolte in regards to German history.[19] Laqueur asserted that concepts such as modernization were inadequate tools for explaining Soviet history while totalitarianism was not.[20]

==Totalitarianism outside of politics==

==Totalitarianism outside of politics==

Non-political aspects of the [[culture]] and [[Symbol|motifs]] of totalitarian countries have themselves often been labeled inately "totalitarian". For example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Dalrymple Theodore Dalrymple], a British [[author]], physican, and political commentator, has written for City Journal that brutalist structures are an [[expression]] of totalitarianism given that their grand, concrete-based [[design]] involves destroying gentler, more-human places such as gardens.[24] In 1984, [[author]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell George Orwell] described the Ministry of Truth as an "enormous, pyramidal structure of white concrete, soaring up terrace after terrace, three hundred metres into the air"; columnist Ben Macintyre of The Times has stated that that was "a prescient description of the sort of totalitarian [[architecture]] that would soon dominate the Communist bloc".[25]

Non-political aspects of the [[culture]] and [[Symbol|motifs]] of totalitarian countries have themselves often been labeled inately "totalitarian". For example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Dalrymple Theodore Dalrymple], a British [[author]], physican, and political commentator, has written for City Journal that brutalist structures are an [[expression]] of totalitarianism given that their grand, concrete-based [[design]] involves destroying gentler, more-human places such as gardens.[24] In 1984, [[author]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell George Orwell] described the Ministry of Truth as an "enormous, pyramidal structure of white concrete, soaring up terrace after terrace, three hundred metres into the air"; columnist Ben Macintyre of The Times has stated that that was "a prescient description of the sort of totalitarian [[architecture]] that would soon dominate the Communist bloc".[25]

==In popular culture==

==In popular culture==

According to Soviet writer Fazil Iskander,

According to Soviet writer Fazil Iskander,

<blockquote>Under the totalitarian regime, it was as if you were forced to live in the same room with an insanely violent man.</blockquote>

<blockquote>Under the totalitarian regime, it was as if you were forced to live in the same room with an insanely violent man.</blockquote>

George Orwell's books ''[http://wikilivres.info/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four Nineteen Eighty-Four]'' and ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=SGAZdjNfruYC Animal Farm]'' are famous for their dystopian depiction of totalitarian [[society]], as is their lesser-known predecessor, We by Yevgeny Zamyatin.

George Orwell's books ''[https://wikilivres.info/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four Nineteen Eighty-Four]'' and ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=SGAZdjNfruYC Animal Farm]'' are famous for their dystopian depiction of totalitarian [[society]], as is their lesser-known predecessor, We by Yevgeny Zamyatin.

In the [[Science Fiction]] world of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek Star Trek], the alien [[entity]] called 'Borg' is made of various [[individuals]] with no [[concept]] of their own [[identity]] held within a group mind. All their [[speech]] involves the use of the term "we" instead of "I". In the episode Scorpion (Star Trek: Voyager), the Borg are referred to the closest thing that the [[universe]] has to pure [[evil]].

In the [[Science Fiction]] world of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek Star Trek], the alien [[entity]] called 'Borg' is made of various [[individuals]] with no [[concept]] of their own [[identity]] held within a group mind. All their [[speech]] involves the use of the term "we" instead of "I". In the episode Scorpion (Star Trek: Voyager), the Borg are referred to the closest thing that the [[universe]] has to pure [[evil]].

==See also==

==See also==

*'''''[[195:8 Secular Totalitarianism|Secular Totalitarianism]]'''''

*'''''[[195:8 Secular Totalitarianism|Secular Totalitarianism]]'''''

*Marcello Sorce Keller, “Why is Music so Ideological, Why Do Totalitarian States Take It So Seriously: A Personal View from History, and the Social Sciences”, Journal of Musicological Research, XXVI(2007), no. 2-3, pp. 91-122

*Marcello Sorce Keller, “Why is Music so Ideological, Why Do Totalitarian States Take It So Seriously: A Personal View from History, and the Social Sciences”, Journal of Musicological Research, XXVI(2007), no. 2-3, pp. 91-122

==External links==

==External links==

* [http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/col-totalitarianism.htm Totalitarianism] - Article on the origin and meaning of the term; gives many 20th century examples and contrasts with Authoritarianism

* [https://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/col-totalitarianism.htm Totalitarianism] - Article on the origin and meaning of the term; gives many 20th century examples and contrasts with Authoritarianism

* [http://documentos.fundacionfaes.info/document_file/filename/474/00052-05_-_totalitarism_and_human.pdf FAES Totalitarism and Human Nature: How and Why Communism Failed]

* [https://documentos.fundacionfaes.info/document_file/filename/474/00052-05_-_totalitarism_and_human.pdf FAES Totalitarism and Human Nature: How and Why Communism Failed]

* [http://www.dictatorshipwatch.com/index.php Dictatorship Watch, putting totalitarianism in perspective]

* [https://www.dictatorshipwatch.com/index.php Dictatorship Watch, putting totalitarianism in perspective]

* [http://library.thinkquest.org/C004169/def_tota.html Oracle ThinkQuest Library definition]

* [https://library.thinkquest.org/C004169/def_tota.html Oracle ThinkQuest Library definition]

[[Category: Political Science]]

[[Category: Political Science]]

[[Category: History]]

[[Category: History]]