Customer Reviews

The Origins of Totalitarianism

5 star:		(20)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Hannah Arendt's _The Origins of Totalitarianism_ is a book that takes a hard look at two rival totalitarian movements in the twentieth century, Soviet Communism and Nazism, and traces their historical roots. The book is divided into three volumes focusing on Antisemitism, Imperialism, and Totalitarianism. The first of these volumes is concerned with the historical origins of Antisemitism. Arendt examines some of the ways historians have dealt with the historical roots of Antisemitism. For example, some historians have argued based on a "scapegoat theory" that the Jews were used as an innocent scapegoat for the world's ills. Arendt concludes that such approaches are flawed because they fail to take into account the full historical situation of the Jews. Arendt explores the rise of Antisemitism in the birth of the nation-state, the emancipation of the Jews, the rise of the Jewish financiers, the roles of Jews within society, and the infamous Dreyfus affair. Of particular interest here is the role of conpiracy theories concerning such individuals as Benjamin Disraeli or the infamous forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The idea that the Jews constitute a race or are members of secret societies or clubs played an important role in the historical development of Antisemitism. The second of the volumes in this book is concerned with the rise of Imperialism. Here, a discussion of racism and racial thinking is examined involving such racial theorists as Count Arthur de Gobineau and various forms of Social Darwinism. The role of the Boers in South Africa is looked at and a thorough examination of the lives of such individuals as Cecil Rhodes, who called for the creation of a secret society of aristocratic Nordic elite, is made. The great Pan Movements, Pan-Slavism, Pan-Germanism, and the Pan-Arabism of T. E. Lawrence are dealt with and their subsequent roles in the creation of the totalitarian states is explored. The final volume of this book is concerned with Totalitarianism proper. Here, the role of propaganda and the secret police, as well as terror and the concentration camps are dealt with in their place in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Arendt explores each of these issues and shows why they are so particularly disturbing. Arendt contends that totalitarianism sought to annihilate the nature of man completely. Repression and terror abound within the totalitarian state and freedom is virtually nonexistent. Written during the Cold War period and just after the Second World War, this book takes an important look into the minds of such totalitarian leaders as Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. Their movements of Nazism and Soviet Communism continue to haunt the modern world even though they have been largely extinguished. The book is important today not only for historical reasons, but also because it gives a unique view of the world within a totalitarian society and the unique political danger that such totalitarian movements and institutions causes for the modern world.

If you have a couple of months to spare and an interest not only in the Totalitarian regimes in the former Soviet Union and Germany, but also a desire to learn about antisemitism and imperialism then this is the book for you. If you just want to know about Totalitarianism, get the volume only containing that portion. This is an incredibly dense and comprehensive history that takes both patience and time to wade through. The journey is well worth it, though, as Hannah Arendt shows the incredibly destructive nature of all that makes one human under a totalitarian rule. It isn't a fun read, but definitely a rewarding one.

Over half a century after its original publication, "The Origins of Totalitarianism" is still the most important treatise on totalitarianism in government. Arendt's book is also just as relevant and important today as it was in the mid-20th Century.

The book is divided into three main sections: Antisemitism, Imperialism, and Totalitarianism. In the first section, Arendt tracks the rise of antisemitism in Europe, looking mainly at 19th Century events and situations that aided the spread of this phenomenon through European culture. The Dreyfus Affair, which sharply divided France and ultimately became a political battle between antisemites and their opponents at the end of the 19th Century, gets more attention than any other event in this chapter.

In the middle section on imperialism, Arendt shows how the rise and fall of the continental European imperialist movements of the 19th Century (mainly, Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism) helped set the stage for their 20th Century totalitarian successors. As she puts it in opening the chapter on "the Pan Movements": "Nazism and Bolshevism owe more to Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism (respectively) than to any other ideology or political movement. This is most evident in foreign politics, where the strategies of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia have followed so closely the well-known programs of conquest outlined by the pan-movements before and during the first World War that totalitarian aims have frequently been mistaken for the pursuance of some permanent German or Russian interests. While neither Hitler nor Stalin has ever acknowledged his debt to imperialism in the development of his methods of rule, neither has hesitated to admit his indebtedness to the pan-movements' ideology or to imitate their slogans." It's a testament to the truth and prescience of Arendt's work that the preceding passage remains as timely as ever, given the ongoing collapse of the Pan-Arabist movement which dominated the Middle East during the second half of the 20th Century and the battle between democracy and totalitarian Islamofascism over which will rise up next.

The first two sections lead perfectly into the third and most important part of the book: the section on totalitarianism. Arendt shows how Nazism and Bolshevism were much more similar in their goals, practices, ideologies, and enemies than many people often believe or want to admit. They were both mass movements that sprang from cultures that had largely dismissed any objective truths. (Arendt: "The ideal subject of totalitarianism is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction and the distinction between true and false no longer exist.") Both movements sought power for the sake of power, were rigidly ideological, made widespread use of terror, sought not only to punish and kill their enemies (as many brutal governments before them had done) but to dehumanize them and erase any trace of their existence from the memories of the governments' other subjects, a phenomenon introduced to the world by these 20th Century totalitarian governments.

Many people have said in the decades since the Holocaust and the Soviet Gulag that the world should never let these atrocities happen again. But the sad irony is that many of these same people then promote a materialist, existentialist worldview that are the breeding grounds for the same radical totalitarian governments that ultimately carry out these atrocities. Arendt recognized this problem: "...We actually have nothing to fall back on in order to understand a phenomenon that nevertheless confronts us with its overpowering reality and breaks down all standards we know. There is only one thing that seems to be discernible: we may say that radical evil has emerged in connection with a system in which all men have become equally superfluous. The manipulators of this system believe in their own superfluousness as much as in that of all others, and the totalitarian murderers are all the more dangerous because they do not care if they themselves are alive or dead, if they ever lived or never were born... Totalitarian solutions may well survive the fall of totalitarian regimes in the form of strong temptations which will come up whenever it seems impossible to alleviate political, social, or economic misery in a manner worthy of man."

So where do we go from here? "Never again?" I'd love to think so, but I'm not betting on it. I don't think Hannah Arendt would either.

Haannah Arendt's THE ORIGINS OF TOTAITARIANISM(TOT)is both a thoughtful book and a frightening view of both the background of totalitarianism as well as the practical application of this political phenomena. The reader should realize this book requires time and careful thought to appreciate the book's importance.

The first section of the book deals with antisemitism which Miss Arendt argues was a cornerstone of later totalitarianism. She argues that the gradual development of mass culture and mass politics resulted in targeting and scapegoating any target minority such as Jews. She explains that antisemitism was a gradual political movement that exploded in the late 19th and especially in the 20th century. A different thesis could have been presented, but thus far this is the best one this reviewer has read.

Part two of the book explains how imperialism and racism merged especailly during the Age of Nationalism. Religious discord was replaced by sociological and political theories that not only extolled nation but also race and blood. This section deals with these two concepts both in Western Europe and Eastern Europe. One must remember that persecution of Jews was particulary lethal in Eastern Europe between World War I and World War II and espeically during The Second World War.

Part three of the book is the best section of THE ORIGINS OF TOTALITARIANISM. If readers have difficutly with sections one and two of this book, they owe it to themselves to at least read section three.

Miss Arendt makes a frightening assessment that the liquidation (mass murder of people of race or class) was not so much personal vendetta as these mass murders were bureaucratic operations that were done as a matter of political policy and "normal" bureaucratic operations. She warns readers that totalitarian leaders changed enemies almost weekly. In other words, those who were innocent one time were "enemies of the state or people" later. In other words, totalitarian leaders never never exhausted their enemies' lists and kept the masses alert for supposed enemies regardless of the rapid changes in those designated for mass murder. One quote that should alert thoughtful readers is, "The aim of totalitarian education has never been to instill convictions but to destroy the capacity to form any." The serious implication is that totalitarian leaders suspect that thoughtlessness is a virtue which benefits the leaders of the mass political movements. The fact is that once innocent people were arrested, they were "non-persons" whose memories were altered and then forgotten.

This book is a serious warning to anyone who takes pride in individual liberties and appreciates individual achievement regardless of their religious convictions or ancestry. Miss Arendt is clear that totalitarian leaders do not recognize talent except as talented individuals may threaten their arrogant self importance.
Readers would do well to also read Orwell's 1984 and Hoffer's THE TRUE BELIEVER to have a better grasp of THE ORIGINS OF TOTALITARIANISM. This reviewer highly recommends this book with the reservation that this book is not "light reading."

I ordered two copies of Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism, as part of a reading study project. The book that arrived was published "on demand." I support that idea. But the copy received was utterly worthless. To save costs, I suppose, the book was repaginated. Since this book has footnotes, which were meant to be at the bottom of pages, the results in the scanned text were footnotes breaking up the text, with no way of easily distinguishing between footnotes and text. The lines themselves were not just subject to occasional typos, but at times wholly, completely, utterly unreadable. For example, I came across this line at random when I was deciding whether or not to try to use this book or return it, from page 348: "The following analysis follows closely Georg Simmel's "Sociology of Secrecy and? ona' KTr" ' u Z"' '"' " J" - l of Sociology, Vol. XI, No.4, January, r? nsix "hl", ut a'.... You get the idea. On the copyright page, they engage in special pleading, admitting that their books may have typos and missing text, but it's more important to provide the book for a low price than not at all. But this book cost 32 dollars! That's not *that* cheap. And any book with footnotes read with optical scanning would be made unreadable by reshuffling the pages the way they did, regardless of typographic errors. It is a matter of basic common sense that this would be an issue, but no common sense was applied to that issue. The result is a book that is so difficult to read that it is, in effect, not making Arendt's book available at all. At five cents a page, it would have cost me about 38 dollars to photocopy the original book from a library. The result would have been unbound, but at least readable. Instead, I purchased not just the illusion of a book, but an insult of a book--and the only reason that I am not out five times this cost is because three of our group elected to obtain the book from their local library.

Until this publisher takes responsibility for providing books that are at least minimally evaluated for their utility, and thus minimally functional as a book, avoid them for any book with footnotes, and use them with caution for any other kind of book.

I spoke with an Amazon representative today by phone, but I would like to reiterate my issues with this product. Even though I had marked the first few pages, the representative assured me I would receive a full refund. While the refund is important to me, I would urge Amazon.com to discontinue selling this book, or others from this publisher or seller.
I purchased this book about a month ago, intending to use it for one of my classes. I just began reading it, had marked a few pages, and ignored my previous concern with its quality. After much frustration I discontinued using it due to its many errors in transcription. The book does not have a copyright, states that the publisher cannot be held responsible for its numerous errors on the "publication" page, many words are misspelled beyond recognition, and there is incomprehensible digital typeface in the middle of many pages, among numerous other issues with it.
Amazon needs to stop selling this product to its customers. I have bought numerous books and other goods from your website and have had no quality issues with them, until this purchase. I have since purchased a copy of the work from a legitimate publisher in place of this false copy. I would not have written if I were not legitimately concerned with this book. I am not even sure this "publisher" has a right to be printing this book, or others. I urge you to address this issue with whomever can best handle the situation, and if you can, to flip through this product to any page, and you will see the obvious issues with it.
It is unfortunate that I did not open this book sooner, and that I marked a few pages in an attempt to decipher it. I have no issues with Amazon.com and I plan to continue to make purchases on the site. I just hope nobody else has to deal with this publisher's quality control problems in the future.

This is a must read for anyone interested in understanding popular history, values, and structures of modern western society, and how they relate to modern political power in the twentieth and twenty-first century. It challenges many values that are often taken for granted in national and international power play and politics. The Origins of Totalitarianism will remains relevant to current events, and a warning to those who advocate change without taking into account the mistakes committed by our forbearer. This book explains in detail the dangers to liberal democracy that the scourge of racism has been and could be again. On a darker note it could also be used as blueprint by those who wish to abuse power. A true classic.

At first glance one could be drawn into making close parallels between modern Pan Islamist movements and the Pan European movements of the twentieth century, but the analysis would be far from complete. The Pan European movements where primarily tribal in nature, where as the Osama's Pan Islamist movement forms a superset without full integration of racial components. The dangers and the cold bureaucratic cauculas are similar, however Islam spans many races and cultures. Race therefore cannot form the primary glue required to hold it together. Also Islamist movements are not progressive, they are reactionary in nature. On the other hand close parallels can be drawn to the Pan Slavic movement with regards to Saddam's Iraqi nationalistic movement. Osama's concept of Pan Islam differs in many ways from Stalin's or Hitler's base, the primarily glue is religious ideology and fear, not race or nationalism. Furthermore his ideology is not anywhere close to being shared by the masses within Islamic countries, and as a result terrorism is a requirement from start, not so much against the west, but against moderate elements or differing sects within the countries where this movement thrives. This is not to say that they do not use terrorism in all of it's traditional roles. Euro style nationalism is counter productive to the Pan Islamist movement, and one of it's objectives is to break down nationalism. In short if one must make parallels, they can be made to the books third section and Osama's Islamist movement operations, but only very weak correlation to sections one and two.

This book is written in a way that requires the reader to work hard, but it is worth the effort.

This is a digital scan of Arendt's classic work using OCR technology. The text is jumbled and riddled with mistakes. The notes are interspersed with the text with no clear differentiation between the two. Chapters begin and end mid sentence. As a result, a difficult book is made nearly unreadable. I strongly suggest reading this book, but steer clear of the General Books edition.

First let me say I read this book in reverse order. The text is divided into three sections, "Anti-Semitism," "Imperialism" and "Totalitarianism." I started out intending to read the final section only, and it is possible to read that part alone and not be entirely lost. However, after reading the third part I decided to go back and read the section on Imperialism as well. I will say that some basic knowledge of the conditions of Europe and Russia are definitely helpful in understanding the book. I was very well served by some lectures on WW2 and dictatorships of the 20th century I listened to recently.

This book can be a difficult read and it does take time to get through. It is densely packed and written with a philosophical style, German philosophy in particular. I should say there wasn't anything in the book that totally left me lost, that I simply did not understand. One of the difficulties of the book is the length of sentences at times, very long and drawn out thoughts with more thoughts and qualifiers and paradoxes in between, forcing one to re-read the sentence to make sure you got the point. In short this book is not overly friendly to the casual, modern reader, but it's probably still the best book on the topic that it covers. Another good one is the out of print "Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy" by Friedrich and Brzezinski, less on the origins and more on the nature of Totalitarian states of the past century. And with specific chapters on subjects such as agriculture, labor, industry and education (to give some examples) you can guess it is going to be a little more detailed than this one.

I'm going to present here what I consider a quick summary, and indeed it is impossible to give anything BUT a "summary" of a text like this because the detail leaves one at a loss to express its real depths.

Imperialism

In the Imperialism section Arendt spends much time speaking of the drive to send "idle capital and idle labor" abroad to be productive, and for Western European imperialism this went to Africa. The Western Imperialism model has a rather "white man's burden" to it. The drive often expressed was for profit, but was ultimately about expansion for its own sake. Those on the ground were of two types: adventurers, the dragon slayers of their time who believed they were benefiting humanity in some way, the other were of a sort of "mobster class" who enjoyed danger and a land far from home where they could get away with almost anything. Imperialism led to the beginning of "race thinking" as something more serious than it had been before. The Eastern European form of imperialism took a rather different model, created by societies which had not experienced a nation-state and which were more rootless than those found in Britain with its well-rooted peasant society. The pan-movements with their belief in tribal nationalism became influential but remained vague at first in their purpose and goals, and were part of the drive behind what Arendt calls Continental Imperialism; essentially land-locked imperialism opposed to overseas imperialism. In a bitter twist of irony these pan-movements used the model (consciously or unconsciously) of the Jews of a "chosen" people to make their claim to history. These Continental imperialists had lived not under constitutional government but under bureaucracy where it was "rule by decree" which was "power directly applied" opposed to law, leading to an unpredictable nature of what power was and how it would function from one day to the next. Arendt makes an interesting aside here about Kafka and how he viewed power and something one could not understand and the "naturalness of human guilt." Furthermore, as this Eastern form of imperialism grew, they transformed their governments at home. Theirs was not a patriotism or celebration of government, but a tribal nationalism and love for their race itself; on the contrary government was often bitterly hated by the Continental imperialists. In short these imperialists' formed movements which transcended parties and government and focused on the national above all, for example in Austria, pan-Germanic there bitterly opposed the Austrian government but loved their German heritage. And following the First World War a new class of virtually "non-people" were created; refugees who had no place to call home and as a result they also had no rights.

Totalitarianism

In the totalitarianism section Arendt begins by discussing how classes disintegrated into a classless society, the hypocritical society of the bourgeoisie was rejected along with it's insistence on individualism and competition. Private life too was something which was opposed although at the same time that the society was a large mass, it remained full of atomized, insecure individuals. Where the mob had been created in the colonial pillages, now these men became leaders of the early totalitarian movements. In short, following the First World War there was an immense level of dissatisfaction with the status quo and parties. Once the totalitarian movements were formed, terror and propaganda was used to realize their ideology, terror being the biggest factor, existing well after propaganda disappeared. The totalitarian idea justifies itself based on an "inevitable history" philosophy, claiming to have the key to history and acting in accord with something which cannot be refuted because it will always be proven in the future, with the side benefit that when one carries out atrocities one is just doing the inevitable. Furthermore, a reality is created where the conspiracies and ideals of totalitarianism come true, a spell is cast over people's minds which captivates them in a world which is better than the real world and things that happen in reality are interpreted by the ideology so they are internally consistent. Totalitarian organization has a sort of onion-structure, those in the center more radical and going outward from there and toward the outside world one finds less radicalism. The benefit of this is three-fold. First those in higher layers despise those in lower ones as gullible and this gullibility of the innumerable "average man" makes the lies more believable for those lower down and outside of the movement itself. Second, as one goes up this ladder of gullibility, cynicism increases and this attitude will never force the leader to speak the truth because lying fits their cynical mode of "the means satisfying the ends." Only those most gullible and low on the hierarchy believe the day-to-day and contradictory lies, those higher believe in the ideology and power of pure organization. Third, the final and outermost layer, "Front Organizations" presents the movement to the outside, non-totalitarian world. This layer functions to separate average members from the outside world while presenting a facade of normalcy to the outside world itself. This layering can be repeated within layers, creating more radical factions and insecurity in those less radical. In the structure of totalitarianism one also sees a parallel to secret societies with their conspiracies, rituals (ideologies in this case) and an "us vs. them" mentality. But according to Arendt it's a "secret society in daylight" because they openly declared their ideals and their appeal to the discontented masses was not their hidden conspiracies but the ideology itself which gives their life order and purpose. Once a totalitarian movement comes to power it must remain just that, in movement and not tied to any one nation, global rule always the goal. And settling down in a governmental structure and function would mean death for a movement deserving of the title. Furthermore, the pre-existing parts of the government and organizations are left in place, but become a facade behind which the party reigns in complete control. Fully indoctrinated party elites coordinate activity within these government organizations which gives the appearance of continuity from the pre-totalitarian stage. The leader is all important. Orders came down from the leader into a "shapeless" organizational structure, these orders are "intentionally vague" and with the ideological indoctrination of the elite factions they know how to interpret them. Often these elites will give them an even more radical spin than might have been intended to gain favor over other groups. But ultimately power granted to groups is constantly shifted around, as are people within them to keep comradeship from developing among members. In reality there is no hierarchy or independent levels of authority, only the will of the leader which comes down from above to groups who's power could be taken away tomorrow without reason given. In this sense the leader is "everywhere" and the one authority of the land; and without intervening levels of independent authority totalitarianism is opposed to the notion of "authority" itself. The role of the secret police is the most important perhaps above all others, even the army. "Objective enemies" are created, people who have not committed crimes, but who MIGHT commit them in the future because of "tendencies." The secret police ultimately have an ideological function, one is never certain who a member may be, and personal conversation is restricted because of suspicion. When a person or groups' power is taken away without explanation one is left in a paranoid state to wonder about the reasons power was taken away, and every word one has spoken. In this situation freedom ceases to exist, and one does not even need to exercise it in order to be punished and indeed disappear entirely from the face of the earth. And after someone is disappeared suspicion immediately falls on those close to them, driving wedges between individuals and maintaining an atomized society. The concentration camps serve as "laboratories" where the ultimate, logical ends of the ideology and the fundamental belief that "all things are possible" are both tested. Despite wars of aggression and oppression in history, never before was there a belief that all things were possible; perhaps being a perversion of modernism and science. Despite the horrific accounts of the camps, outsiders are incapable of understanding their true nature and purpose; instead it all dissolves into emotion and revulsion. Those sent to the camps seem entirely random and fear no longer exists because no matter what one does or does not do there is the possibility of being disappeared. Thus the concepts of justice, morality and eventually individuality and human dignity within the camps are completely eliminated through torture. Rebellion against such a system becomes meaningless when it assures the murder of oneself along with family and friends, and even more, the disappearance of ones meager attempt at rebellion from history. Human spontaneity and individual will are eliminated; thus totalitarianism is truly only achieved under the conditions of the camps. Totalitarianism is something new; it defies law and claims to operate entirely by some laws of History or of Nature, claiming lawlessness and legitimacy at the same time. The function of terror is to help History or Nature "overcome" human freedom which only slows down the inevitable future utopia. The "ideology" is something new in politics as well; it's looking at an idea and seeing MOVEMENT in it, seeing a logic which explains the world. When it is adopted one sees a "reality behind reality" and totalitarianism takes the idea to its logical extreme and final conclusion. Arendt concludes with a look toward the future saying that isolation of men from one another leads to uncertainty about one's self and one's beliefs. This loneliness creates men who are more willing to accept totalitarian ideas and conclusions about the world, and this condition of loneliness is growing even today, thus totalitarianism and ideological thinking will always be a threat.

Other reviews use appropriate words such as dense and weighty. Arendt writes historical analysis, not history, describing the roots or outcomes of events from the standpoint of competing classes, competing ideas, competing national identities, and broad historical trends. However, she does not always describe the history that she is interpreting, instead assuming the reader is already familiar with it. (I wonder how long the book would be if she had done so.) For example, she devotes an entire chapter to the Dreyfus affair in France, covering many of the leading characters and movements from a groups-in-conflict perspective, but never says what the Dreyfus affair actually was. This is what I mean by historical analysis: she is concerned with the forces that cause history to happen, rather than presenting that history; she is writing about the backstage factors that determine which actors played which roles, rather than reviewing the play itself as it was performed on stage.

As a result this book takes a great deal of effort from the reader to understand. But her ideas are worth the effort, whether the reader agrees or disagrees. Her historical analysis is at times remarkably profound -- as, for example, her description of the racist Afrikaaner state in South Africa as a return of a European people to tribal status, or her observation that racist societies tend also to hold labor in contempt, as it is the despised racial group who end up doing that labor. Such observations come about two to a page, and these are what make this a book that must be digested slowly. Each such observation deserves reflection -- both to absorb it and, at times, to disagree with it.

Even many educated Americans are not accustomed to reading such material any more. If you would like to make the process a bit easier, get the audio book. It is unabridged (from Audible or on CD), and I found listening was easier than reading.

Also, be aware that Arendt presents many of her personal conclusions as fact in dependent clauses. She might say, for example, "Since peoples whose names begin with differing vowels always struggle to the death, the conflict between the Igs and the Ugs inevitably became a war of annihilation" (not a direct quote, but an illustration of her style). Again, this makes the book slow to digest, as the reader does well to pause at the comment "Since peoples whose names begin with differing vowels always struggle to the death" and consider whether this has been demonstrated.

Those who do read this book will come away with many fresh perspectives on history and historical processes. As a note, the book "Modern Tyrants" by Daniel Chirot was written as a response to "The Origins of Totalitarianism," and analyzes several other cases (besides Hitler and Stalin) to derive what the author hopes will be a more general understanding of how and why totalitarian regimes develop. It is also well worth reading.