The comments are raging in my little spoof on the Iraq war debate, being now well over a hundred. We've had one transnationalist troll from Norway, named Canute, who, unlike his wiser namesake, doesn't realize that he will be unable to hold back the tide of freedom. My old friend Marcus Lindroos, a Finnish space enthusiast, has been weighing in as well, trotting out all the hoary stale shibboleths about the Evil Amerikan Empire.

In one post, he called Thieu's South Vietnam a "totalitarian" state. When I corrected him, he asked if that was not synonymous with being a dictatorship. While I don't even think that Thieu was a dictator, I told him that the short answer to that question was "no."

It obviously deserves to be expanded upon. In brief, and while there are sometimes gradations, rather than a bright line between them, authoritarian dictators miminally concern themselves with control of people's lives, usually only to the degree necessary to maintain power, and get what they want. Totalitarians have a much broader, and more frightening agenda--they seek to control every aspect of peoples' daily lives, down to their very thoughts.

Totalitarian regimes are characterized by total control over the educational system, a state-imposed ideology, and an almost-messianic worship of the leader himself, with dire penalties for anyone who brooks opposition, in word or deed. Thieu (and Pinochet, and other authoritarians) often ruled with an iron fist, and occasionally might have people disposed of, who they viewed as a threat, but that kind of leader is run-of-the-mill, and as old as civilization.

Totalitarianism was a wholly new monstrous invention of the twentieth century, made possible by technology, particularly communications and information technology. Stalin was the prototype. Hitler perfected it.

In contrast, Thieu (and most of the garden-variety thugs who, for instance, ran Central America through the seventies and eighties), was indifferent to what people wore, or who they worshiped, or even what they thought of him, as long as he got his graft, and was in no fear of losing his power.

And what Marcus and others don't seem to understand is that totalitarianism isn't dead, though perhaps it could be considered to be the undead--a shadowy zombie of Nazism has taken form in the Muslim world. The Taliban were totalitarians--they told people what to wear, how and who to worship, what music they could hear (generally none), and what to think. They destroyed, quite literally, any references to other religions, even when it was a stone statue, meters high, that had been in place for hundreds of years. To enforce their madness, they punished dissenters with cruel and appalling, and very public tortures and executions, to make an example of them. A regime that would pull the fingernails from a woman simply because they had polish on them is a totalitarian regime.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq falls in the same category, though it's a secular form. Mere dictatorships are susceptible to coups. To prevent them, the head of a totalitarian regime instills a high level of fear--anyone who shows the slightest hint of disloyalty is not just prevented from rising to a position from which he could make an attempt at a coup, but murdered, often brutally after torture, along with his wife, children, parents, siblings, anyone who knew him, and the horses or camels they rode in on. The people are simply tools and resources to be used for his own purposes--if he needs guinea pigs to try out the latest Sarin recipe, just toss it on some Kurds to see what happens.

Ultimately, the source of this new and virulent form of Nazism (including the rabid anti-semitism) is the Wahhabi sect of Islam, funded by the oil money of the House of Saud. Through much of the nineties, and until last fall, Afghanistan was effectively a Saudi colony.

And just as ultimately, our war against it will not be over until such funding stops, either voluntarily, or by taking away their oil.

The danger from the Middle East is both less, and greater than that we faced sixty years ago from the totalitarian regimes of Japan and Germany. It's less, because the countries that are waging an undeclared war on us are industrially backwards, and their conventional military ability is pathetic. It's greater, because they are occasionally clever about using our own technology and love of liberty against us (as we saw on September 11), and because they inexplicably have the sympathy of many in the west, particularly in Europe, which is going to hinder our ability to deal properly with them, (though it will certainly not prevent it).

For many years, we found it convenient to ignore the trampling of the rights and liberties of the people of the region by the thugs who ran the place, as long as we continued to get affordable oil. We discovered last fall that such neglect is no longer affordable. The next geopolitical challenge is the rise of virulent, totalitarian Islam and Arabism, and if we wish to prevent future recurrences of what happened last September, we will have to meet it, and firmly.

Call me perverse, but at least Marcu$'s inability to distinguish between "totalitarian" and "authoritarian," much less what the Thieu government in South Vietnam was about, suggests that the vaunted European school system does as a good a job of not teaching as our own.

But, then, you have to wonder, "What ARE they teaching kids over there, these days?"

DEATH TO USA DEATH TO ISRAEL! MAY THE MASTERS OF CAPITALISM BE STOMPED OUT AND A MORE HUMANE AND DEMOCRATIC ECONOMY PUT IN ITS PLACE. MARCH FORWARD PROGRESSIVES AND DO NOT BELIEVE THE FACIST AND CAPITALIST PROPAGANDA ON THIS WEBSITE!

It's not a matter of not teaching--it's a matter of bad teaching.

There's an old saying: "The problem isn't the things that people don't know--it's the things they know for damned sure, that are wrong."

Re: Death to capitalism et al comment.

Can anyone tell better than me whether this is serious, or a satire? I really can't decide.

Anyway, I'm not a facist. I dislike everyone's face.

I suspect it's both -- possibly meant to be serious, and thus serving as a satire on its author.

Didn't Jeanne Kirkpatrick make her career on an article she wrote (for Commentary I think) enumerating this precise distinction?

Um -- I don't know if she made her _career_ on it. I do know that I was taught the difference between totalitarianism and communism at some point in either high school (back in the Seventies) or my first years at college (early Eighties); and anyway I had read up on the subject... But I'm interested in that stuff. Not everybody focuses on the same thing; Marcus may know a lot about space, but have neglected his political science and history more than he realizes.

As for all-caps guy -- like, I am so _totally_ convinced now of the rightness of Marx's theories after having a misspelled missive shouted at me. That's just what it takes to convince me of the inevitability of the Revolution. Down with the capitalist running dogs! All hail the leaders of the proletariat! [/sarcasm]

AS THOUGH YOU FASCIST IDIOTARIAN SLAYERS OF TOLERANCE HAVE NEVER PRODUCED TYPOS. YES, IT IS YOU PEOPLE WHO ARE THE IDIOTARIANS. THE PROGRESSIVES WHO ARE FIGHTING THE SLAVERY OF CAPITALISM, A SYSTEM THAT PROMOTES SLAVERY AND RACISM, SHOULD RIGHTFULLY BE CALLED THE GENIUSOTARIANS USING YOUR LINGUISTIC DEVICES.

Yup, I guess he/she/it was serious.

Apparently he/she/it thnks that capitalizing everything will somehow make it more compelling and convincing, despite all of the tired junior-high-level revolutionary cliches.

And such a brave vanguard of the revolution, to post anonymously. Apparently afraid that it will be clapped in prison, like Chomsky (NOT) for speaking truth to power.

What a chucklehead.

Excellent post. It always bemused me that people would huff that the South Vietnamese government was insufficiently democratic, then demand it should be replaced by totalitarian Communists, who were even further from being democratic. I guess that shows the "peace movement" really was on drugs.

Rand, thanx for the review. It's needed every so often. I never had a real solid concept of the dfferences until I read Hannah Arendt's "Totalitarianism."
I don't think the IDIOT from above even understands the debt that fascism owes to Marx4ever.

Rand, thanx for the review. It's needed every so often. I never had a real solid concept of the dfferences until I read Hannah Arendt's "Totalitarianism."
I don't think the IDIOT from above even understands the debt that fascism owes to Marx4ever.

I found this post very interesting and made some comments on my blog at
http://floyd.best.vwh.net/weblog/blogger.html#80813527

Rand - The way to get Marcus to shut upo about Evil American Imperialism is to remind him that Finland was an ally of Adolf Hitler.

Several people did that in the other thread. He remained impervious.

One distinguishing characteristic of totalitarianism was that it didn't shirk at punishing the innocent. The junta might haul you in and attach electrodes to the family jewels, in order to find out where the revolucionarios' arms cache was hidden, but that would most likely be the end of it. The NKVD would arrest, interrogate, convict, and imprison or execute people by quota. It bred a feeling of helplessness in the populace, knowing that innocence was no protection against the state, and that literally anyone could be condemned.

An old Soviet joke had a prison guard ask a zek, "What are you in for?"
"Why, for nothing at all!"
"What's your sentence?"
"Twenty-five years."
"You're lying!" said the guard. "The sentence for nothing at all is fifteen years!"

There's a beautiful Beria quote, related in (I think) Sullivan's 'Modern Times':
"Of COURSE we arrest and punish the innocent! If only the guilty were punished, no-one would be afraid!"
As far as Marcus goes...I just wonder what Marshal Mannerheim would think of him, were he still around.

Oh come on. "GENIUSOTARIANS?" That's gotta be a joke.

Other than that, you wrote a fine essay, Rand, except for one crucial thing: it was not Stalin who was the prototype for totalitarianism and Hitler the final refinement, but quite the opposite. Or rather, Stalin's USSR was both the prototypical form and the final form. In Nazi Germany you had both freedom of personal conscience (i.e. the reasonable ability to actually THINK what you wanted and keep it inside your head) and the ability to avoid persecution if you just shut up and did what you were told. Stalin's ghastly genius was in realizing that only by persecuting and arresting the completely innocent, and even the devoted, could you finally get inside people's HEADS, nearly control their thought patterns.

> My old friend Marcus Lindroos, a Finnish space
> enthusiast, has been weighing in as well,
> trotting out all the hoary stale shibboleths
> about the Evil Amerikan Empire.

Thanks, but that is not how I see it. What galls me is the highly moralistic tone of these discussions, "we fight to promote freedom and preserve liberty around the world against those who hate our 'values'". Sure enough, this fight puts a secular Western democracy (USA) against a bunch of almost medieval theocracies/terrorists. So people are turning this into an epic Good vs. Evil morality play... But I think the American policy objectives traditionally have been tied to strategic considerations, which means U.S. governments have had few qualms about supporting oppressive regimes in the Third World (don't worry: the post-colonial European powers such as France also keep doing it). So I don't necessarily think you (or we) can claim the moral high ground, when discussing our past Third World policies with our Arab "friends".
---
As for "Evil Amerikan Empire", I do not consider myself anti-American although I certainly dislike the Republican religious right. Overall, Americans are good at some things and not so good in other respects. Anyway --

> Totalitarians have a much broader, and more
> frightening agenda--they seek to control every
> aspect of peoples' daily lives, down to their
> very thoughts.

> Totalitarian regimes are characterized by total
> control over the educational system, a
> state-imposed ideology, and an almost-messianic
> worship of the leader himself,

> Totalitarianism was a wholly new monstrous
> invention of the twentieth century,

Doesn't your description fit medieval Europe as well? True, feudal Europe lacked a strong central government but the Church was a strong force. Heretics, apostates and heathens were often killed without mercy. So it's not exactly a new phenomenon. Taliban like movements have probably existed for millennia.

> The Taliban were totalitarians--they told
> people what to wear, how and who to worship,
> what music they could hear (generally none),
> and what to think. They destroyed, quite
> literally, any references to other religions,
> even when it was a stone statue, meters high,
> that had been in place for hundreds of years.
> To enforce their madness, they punished
> dissenters with cruel and appalling, and very
> public tortures and executions, to make an
> example of them.

Sounds like (just to name one example-) the Eastern Roman empire during the early medieval period.

MARCU$

Long P.S.:

> Rand - The way to get Marcus to shut upo about
> Evil American Imperialism is to remind him that
> Finland was an ally of Adolf Hitler.

Hahaha. It does not faze me at all; the good old U.S. of A. has supported far more fascists than Finland ever did. And you *still* don't get it -- all of you:-) I am *not* complaining about Evil American Imperialism as such. I am bitching about Evil American Double-Standards/holier-than-thou hypocrisy! If you want to pursue a pragmatic Third World policy to suit your own interests [as you have done in the past], it's perfectly fine by me. We have been doing it for centuries on this side of the ocean. I am saying the consequences and reasons are a lot more complicated than the President's "Axis of Evil Empires" talk.

> For many years, we found it convenient to
> ignore the trampling of the rights and
> liberties of the people of the region by the
> thugs who ran the place, as long as we
> continued to get affordable oil. We discovered
> last fall that such neglect is no longer
> affordable.

EXCELLENT POINT, Rand. Enough said.

MARCU$ wrote:
> Sure enough, this fight puts a secular Western
> democracy (USA) against a bunch of almost
> medieval theocracies/terrorists.

Yes, and some secular totalitarian ones
like Iraq.

> So people are turning this into an epic
> Good vs. Evil morality play...

Naturally they do. The Good is very
imperfect of course - but it's all we have;
while the Evil is rather extreme, and
*its* victory would leave little hope for
the world. So this epic confrontation is
all it is claimed to be and more.

> But I think the American policy objectives >traditionally have been tied to strategic >considerations,

How could it be otherwise? Whoever wants to win
must have strategic considerations.

>which means U.S. governments have had few qualms >about supporting oppressive regimes in the Third >World

They had qualms - but they had to support
such regimes sometimes - against worse or more dangerous regimes.

It is morally right, not wrong, to be sane
and choose the lesser evil.

There are no apologies due - *except* for strategic mistakes; and
some of them have been committed
for moralistic reasons.

Carter was wrong when he undercut the Shah without taking care of succession - so that
this oppressive dictatorship was replaced by a worse and more oppressive one. Likewise, he was totally wrong in helping the Sandinistas come to power and in subsidizing them: these new
oppressors were infinitely worse than
Somoza Jr. We owe a debt to the people of
Nicaragua for that, which we have redeemed only
partially by supporting the Contras and by
subsequent economic aid.

In both cases, a misguided moralism
resulted in real international immorality.

So the USA has not *always* been on the right
side - but *by and large* we were, through
all history - there has never been a major
power in the world with a better record.

> So I don't necessarily think you (or we) can
>claim the moral high ground,

But the points conceded on top
are in themselves quite sufficient
to claim that moral high ground...