How can communism be totalitarian?











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












I'm quite a newbie to history and politics so a sentence from Huxley surprised me (it might not be surprising for you). In Brave new world revisited (1958) he writes:




It is a pretty safe bet that, twenty years from now, all the worlds over-populated and underdeveloped countries will be under some form of totalitarian rule – probably by the communist party.




I have three questions:




  • How can communism be totalitarian?

  • Is there any simple way to see how communism leads to totalitarian governments?

  • Was Huxley right (are South American countries mostly under totalitarian-communist governments?)?










share|improve this question













migrated from history.stackexchange.com 3 hours ago


This question came from our site for historians and history buffs.















  • Hmm you're right, i thought of this site mainly because of the evidence from communist totalitarian governments should come from history. Is it possible to move the question? @SamuelRussell
    – santimirandarp
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    How can communism NOT be totalitarian? The system guarantees that a certain percentage of the population will think that they are working harder than they need to and/or getting less than they deserve. Totalitarianism is the only way to keep such people in line.
    – jamesqf
    1 hour ago















up vote
2
down vote

favorite












I'm quite a newbie to history and politics so a sentence from Huxley surprised me (it might not be surprising for you). In Brave new world revisited (1958) he writes:




It is a pretty safe bet that, twenty years from now, all the worlds over-populated and underdeveloped countries will be under some form of totalitarian rule – probably by the communist party.




I have three questions:




  • How can communism be totalitarian?

  • Is there any simple way to see how communism leads to totalitarian governments?

  • Was Huxley right (are South American countries mostly under totalitarian-communist governments?)?










share|improve this question













migrated from history.stackexchange.com 3 hours ago


This question came from our site for historians and history buffs.















  • Hmm you're right, i thought of this site mainly because of the evidence from communist totalitarian governments should come from history. Is it possible to move the question? @SamuelRussell
    – santimirandarp
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    How can communism NOT be totalitarian? The system guarantees that a certain percentage of the population will think that they are working harder than they need to and/or getting less than they deserve. Totalitarianism is the only way to keep such people in line.
    – jamesqf
    1 hour ago













up vote
2
down vote

favorite









up vote
2
down vote

favorite











I'm quite a newbie to history and politics so a sentence from Huxley surprised me (it might not be surprising for you). In Brave new world revisited (1958) he writes:




It is a pretty safe bet that, twenty years from now, all the worlds over-populated and underdeveloped countries will be under some form of totalitarian rule – probably by the communist party.




I have three questions:




  • How can communism be totalitarian?

  • Is there any simple way to see how communism leads to totalitarian governments?

  • Was Huxley right (are South American countries mostly under totalitarian-communist governments?)?










share|improve this question













I'm quite a newbie to history and politics so a sentence from Huxley surprised me (it might not be surprising for you). In Brave new world revisited (1958) he writes:




It is a pretty safe bet that, twenty years from now, all the worlds over-populated and underdeveloped countries will be under some form of totalitarian rule – probably by the communist party.




I have three questions:




  • How can communism be totalitarian?

  • Is there any simple way to see how communism leads to totalitarian governments?

  • Was Huxley right (are South American countries mostly under totalitarian-communist governments?)?







political-history communism






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 3 hours ago









santimirandarp

1113




1113




migrated from history.stackexchange.com 3 hours ago


This question came from our site for historians and history buffs.






migrated from history.stackexchange.com 3 hours ago


This question came from our site for historians and history buffs.














  • Hmm you're right, i thought of this site mainly because of the evidence from communist totalitarian governments should come from history. Is it possible to move the question? @SamuelRussell
    – santimirandarp
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    How can communism NOT be totalitarian? The system guarantees that a certain percentage of the population will think that they are working harder than they need to and/or getting less than they deserve. Totalitarianism is the only way to keep such people in line.
    – jamesqf
    1 hour ago


















  • Hmm you're right, i thought of this site mainly because of the evidence from communist totalitarian governments should come from history. Is it possible to move the question? @SamuelRussell
    – santimirandarp
    3 hours ago






  • 1




    How can communism NOT be totalitarian? The system guarantees that a certain percentage of the population will think that they are working harder than they need to and/or getting less than they deserve. Totalitarianism is the only way to keep such people in line.
    – jamesqf
    1 hour ago
















Hmm you're right, i thought of this site mainly because of the evidence from communist totalitarian governments should come from history. Is it possible to move the question? @SamuelRussell
– santimirandarp
3 hours ago




Hmm you're right, i thought of this site mainly because of the evidence from communist totalitarian governments should come from history. Is it possible to move the question? @SamuelRussell
– santimirandarp
3 hours ago




1




1




How can communism NOT be totalitarian? The system guarantees that a certain percentage of the population will think that they are working harder than they need to and/or getting less than they deserve. Totalitarianism is the only way to keep such people in line.
– jamesqf
1 hour ago




How can communism NOT be totalitarian? The system guarantees that a certain percentage of the population will think that they are working harder than they need to and/or getting less than they deserve. Totalitarianism is the only way to keep such people in line.
– jamesqf
1 hour ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote













Huxley lays out four terms:




  • over population


  • under development


  • communist party (not communism)


  • totalitarian



We must also add your term:




  • communism


All these terms are politically charged. Their meanings are debated, and the debate has been around advancing current political conflicts.




How can communism be totalitarian?




Communist parties, being in 1958 Stalinist style parties including the Chinese party, were widely believed to be “totalitarian” in Huxley’s society. This meant that people believed the communist party “totalised” all social relationships under party supervision. There are problems with this term, such as “my dictator is merely authoritarian, your dictator is disgustingly totalitarian.” The term is also descriptive rather than theorised. It is a terribly poor match for the way actual party power operated in Stalinist societies, where nomenklatura power was as bottom up as top down.



Communism, being a hypothesised post-scarcity classless society, is not liable to totalisation.



Communism, being the actual societies of the states of Central Europe and East Asia controlled by Stalinist type parties, meets the descriptive term’s meaning adequately—noting again that the term is a poor one.




Is there any simple way to see how communism leads to totalitarian governments?




Some scholars accuse that the project of communism, the project of working class self emancipation, necessarily requires the working class to become a totalising agent: to repress all other classes and to repress itself. This is as speculative as communism itself.



Many scholars claim that historical movements purporting to be communist actually totalised societies. How a minority conspiracy of bourgeois intellectuals are capable of acting as the entire working class is a matter for Leninist apologetics. That communist parties purported to be in favour of communism is undeniable, even if many supporters of working class revolution suggest they were not actually in favour of communism.



It is undeniable that Bolshevik parties destroyed working class and left wing opposition groups. Whether class struggle or party culture caused this is a matter of debate. We don’t know why Bolshevik parties “totalised” societies. The leading arguments are: class struggle was so hard they had to be even harder; that Bolsheviks substitute themselves for the working class at the level of praxis and thus are anti-worker; and, that all communists are evil.




Was Huxley right (are South American countries mostly under totalitarian-communist governments?)?




South American countries aren’t over populated. South American countries aren’t under developed. South American countries aren’t under Stalinist type governments.






share|improve this answer

















  • 1




    It would certainly appear that Venezuela is currently experiencing a Stalinist-style Holomodor.
    – Pieter Geerkens
    2 hours ago












  • Tauger (1991) “The 1932 Harvest” Slavic Review fn 53, p89: despite available grain and state attempts to ameliorate, the destroyed logistics network meant failed subsistence mandated famine. In contrast Venezuela is a non subsistence food importer: there the state has failed to even possess sufficient food for distribution. Bad comparison, Stalinists tried to relieve famine in 1932. Of course they’d destroyed the rural petite-bourgeois who were the logistics network that could have made that desire make any sense.
    – Samuel Russell
    2 hours ago












  • Why would you suggest that South American countries aren't over-populated? The site you link to over-estimates the Earth's carrying capacity by an order of magnitude or more.
    – jamesqf
    1 hour ago











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35589%2fhow-can-communism-be-totalitarian%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
4
down vote













Huxley lays out four terms:




  • over population


  • under development


  • communist party (not communism)


  • totalitarian



We must also add your term:




  • communism


All these terms are politically charged. Their meanings are debated, and the debate has been around advancing current political conflicts.




How can communism be totalitarian?




Communist parties, being in 1958 Stalinist style parties including the Chinese party, were widely believed to be “totalitarian” in Huxley’s society. This meant that people believed the communist party “totalised” all social relationships under party supervision. There are problems with this term, such as “my dictator is merely authoritarian, your dictator is disgustingly totalitarian.” The term is also descriptive rather than theorised. It is a terribly poor match for the way actual party power operated in Stalinist societies, where nomenklatura power was as bottom up as top down.



Communism, being a hypothesised post-scarcity classless society, is not liable to totalisation.



Communism, being the actual societies of the states of Central Europe and East Asia controlled by Stalinist type parties, meets the descriptive term’s meaning adequately—noting again that the term is a poor one.




Is there any simple way to see how communism leads to totalitarian governments?




Some scholars accuse that the project of communism, the project of working class self emancipation, necessarily requires the working class to become a totalising agent: to repress all other classes and to repress itself. This is as speculative as communism itself.



Many scholars claim that historical movements purporting to be communist actually totalised societies. How a minority conspiracy of bourgeois intellectuals are capable of acting as the entire working class is a matter for Leninist apologetics. That communist parties purported to be in favour of communism is undeniable, even if many supporters of working class revolution suggest they were not actually in favour of communism.



It is undeniable that Bolshevik parties destroyed working class and left wing opposition groups. Whether class struggle or party culture caused this is a matter of debate. We don’t know why Bolshevik parties “totalised” societies. The leading arguments are: class struggle was so hard they had to be even harder; that Bolsheviks substitute themselves for the working class at the level of praxis and thus are anti-worker; and, that all communists are evil.




Was Huxley right (are South American countries mostly under totalitarian-communist governments?)?




South American countries aren’t over populated. South American countries aren’t under developed. South American countries aren’t under Stalinist type governments.






share|improve this answer

















  • 1




    It would certainly appear that Venezuela is currently experiencing a Stalinist-style Holomodor.
    – Pieter Geerkens
    2 hours ago












  • Tauger (1991) “The 1932 Harvest” Slavic Review fn 53, p89: despite available grain and state attempts to ameliorate, the destroyed logistics network meant failed subsistence mandated famine. In contrast Venezuela is a non subsistence food importer: there the state has failed to even possess sufficient food for distribution. Bad comparison, Stalinists tried to relieve famine in 1932. Of course they’d destroyed the rural petite-bourgeois who were the logistics network that could have made that desire make any sense.
    – Samuel Russell
    2 hours ago












  • Why would you suggest that South American countries aren't over-populated? The site you link to over-estimates the Earth's carrying capacity by an order of magnitude or more.
    – jamesqf
    1 hour ago















up vote
4
down vote













Huxley lays out four terms:




  • over population


  • under development


  • communist party (not communism)


  • totalitarian



We must also add your term:




  • communism


All these terms are politically charged. Their meanings are debated, and the debate has been around advancing current political conflicts.




How can communism be totalitarian?




Communist parties, being in 1958 Stalinist style parties including the Chinese party, were widely believed to be “totalitarian” in Huxley’s society. This meant that people believed the communist party “totalised” all social relationships under party supervision. There are problems with this term, such as “my dictator is merely authoritarian, your dictator is disgustingly totalitarian.” The term is also descriptive rather than theorised. It is a terribly poor match for the way actual party power operated in Stalinist societies, where nomenklatura power was as bottom up as top down.



Communism, being a hypothesised post-scarcity classless society, is not liable to totalisation.



Communism, being the actual societies of the states of Central Europe and East Asia controlled by Stalinist type parties, meets the descriptive term’s meaning adequately—noting again that the term is a poor one.




Is there any simple way to see how communism leads to totalitarian governments?




Some scholars accuse that the project of communism, the project of working class self emancipation, necessarily requires the working class to become a totalising agent: to repress all other classes and to repress itself. This is as speculative as communism itself.



Many scholars claim that historical movements purporting to be communist actually totalised societies. How a minority conspiracy of bourgeois intellectuals are capable of acting as the entire working class is a matter for Leninist apologetics. That communist parties purported to be in favour of communism is undeniable, even if many supporters of working class revolution suggest they were not actually in favour of communism.



It is undeniable that Bolshevik parties destroyed working class and left wing opposition groups. Whether class struggle or party culture caused this is a matter of debate. We don’t know why Bolshevik parties “totalised” societies. The leading arguments are: class struggle was so hard they had to be even harder; that Bolsheviks substitute themselves for the working class at the level of praxis and thus are anti-worker; and, that all communists are evil.




Was Huxley right (are South American countries mostly under totalitarian-communist governments?)?




South American countries aren’t over populated. South American countries aren’t under developed. South American countries aren’t under Stalinist type governments.






share|improve this answer

















  • 1




    It would certainly appear that Venezuela is currently experiencing a Stalinist-style Holomodor.
    – Pieter Geerkens
    2 hours ago












  • Tauger (1991) “The 1932 Harvest” Slavic Review fn 53, p89: despite available grain and state attempts to ameliorate, the destroyed logistics network meant failed subsistence mandated famine. In contrast Venezuela is a non subsistence food importer: there the state has failed to even possess sufficient food for distribution. Bad comparison, Stalinists tried to relieve famine in 1932. Of course they’d destroyed the rural petite-bourgeois who were the logistics network that could have made that desire make any sense.
    – Samuel Russell
    2 hours ago












  • Why would you suggest that South American countries aren't over-populated? The site you link to over-estimates the Earth's carrying capacity by an order of magnitude or more.
    – jamesqf
    1 hour ago













up vote
4
down vote










up vote
4
down vote









Huxley lays out four terms:




  • over population


  • under development


  • communist party (not communism)


  • totalitarian



We must also add your term:




  • communism


All these terms are politically charged. Their meanings are debated, and the debate has been around advancing current political conflicts.




How can communism be totalitarian?




Communist parties, being in 1958 Stalinist style parties including the Chinese party, were widely believed to be “totalitarian” in Huxley’s society. This meant that people believed the communist party “totalised” all social relationships under party supervision. There are problems with this term, such as “my dictator is merely authoritarian, your dictator is disgustingly totalitarian.” The term is also descriptive rather than theorised. It is a terribly poor match for the way actual party power operated in Stalinist societies, where nomenklatura power was as bottom up as top down.



Communism, being a hypothesised post-scarcity classless society, is not liable to totalisation.



Communism, being the actual societies of the states of Central Europe and East Asia controlled by Stalinist type parties, meets the descriptive term’s meaning adequately—noting again that the term is a poor one.




Is there any simple way to see how communism leads to totalitarian governments?




Some scholars accuse that the project of communism, the project of working class self emancipation, necessarily requires the working class to become a totalising agent: to repress all other classes and to repress itself. This is as speculative as communism itself.



Many scholars claim that historical movements purporting to be communist actually totalised societies. How a minority conspiracy of bourgeois intellectuals are capable of acting as the entire working class is a matter for Leninist apologetics. That communist parties purported to be in favour of communism is undeniable, even if many supporters of working class revolution suggest they were not actually in favour of communism.



It is undeniable that Bolshevik parties destroyed working class and left wing opposition groups. Whether class struggle or party culture caused this is a matter of debate. We don’t know why Bolshevik parties “totalised” societies. The leading arguments are: class struggle was so hard they had to be even harder; that Bolsheviks substitute themselves for the working class at the level of praxis and thus are anti-worker; and, that all communists are evil.




Was Huxley right (are South American countries mostly under totalitarian-communist governments?)?




South American countries aren’t over populated. South American countries aren’t under developed. South American countries aren’t under Stalinist type governments.






share|improve this answer












Huxley lays out four terms:




  • over population


  • under development


  • communist party (not communism)


  • totalitarian



We must also add your term:




  • communism


All these terms are politically charged. Their meanings are debated, and the debate has been around advancing current political conflicts.




How can communism be totalitarian?




Communist parties, being in 1958 Stalinist style parties including the Chinese party, were widely believed to be “totalitarian” in Huxley’s society. This meant that people believed the communist party “totalised” all social relationships under party supervision. There are problems with this term, such as “my dictator is merely authoritarian, your dictator is disgustingly totalitarian.” The term is also descriptive rather than theorised. It is a terribly poor match for the way actual party power operated in Stalinist societies, where nomenklatura power was as bottom up as top down.



Communism, being a hypothesised post-scarcity classless society, is not liable to totalisation.



Communism, being the actual societies of the states of Central Europe and East Asia controlled by Stalinist type parties, meets the descriptive term’s meaning adequately—noting again that the term is a poor one.




Is there any simple way to see how communism leads to totalitarian governments?




Some scholars accuse that the project of communism, the project of working class self emancipation, necessarily requires the working class to become a totalising agent: to repress all other classes and to repress itself. This is as speculative as communism itself.



Many scholars claim that historical movements purporting to be communist actually totalised societies. How a minority conspiracy of bourgeois intellectuals are capable of acting as the entire working class is a matter for Leninist apologetics. That communist parties purported to be in favour of communism is undeniable, even if many supporters of working class revolution suggest they were not actually in favour of communism.



It is undeniable that Bolshevik parties destroyed working class and left wing opposition groups. Whether class struggle or party culture caused this is a matter of debate. We don’t know why Bolshevik parties “totalised” societies. The leading arguments are: class struggle was so hard they had to be even harder; that Bolsheviks substitute themselves for the working class at the level of praxis and thus are anti-worker; and, that all communists are evil.




Was Huxley right (are South American countries mostly under totalitarian-communist governments?)?




South American countries aren’t over populated. South American countries aren’t under developed. South American countries aren’t under Stalinist type governments.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 3 hours ago









Samuel Russell

3,1511131




3,1511131








  • 1




    It would certainly appear that Venezuela is currently experiencing a Stalinist-style Holomodor.
    – Pieter Geerkens
    2 hours ago












  • Tauger (1991) “The 1932 Harvest” Slavic Review fn 53, p89: despite available grain and state attempts to ameliorate, the destroyed logistics network meant failed subsistence mandated famine. In contrast Venezuela is a non subsistence food importer: there the state has failed to even possess sufficient food for distribution. Bad comparison, Stalinists tried to relieve famine in 1932. Of course they’d destroyed the rural petite-bourgeois who were the logistics network that could have made that desire make any sense.
    – Samuel Russell
    2 hours ago












  • Why would you suggest that South American countries aren't over-populated? The site you link to over-estimates the Earth's carrying capacity by an order of magnitude or more.
    – jamesqf
    1 hour ago














  • 1




    It would certainly appear that Venezuela is currently experiencing a Stalinist-style Holomodor.
    – Pieter Geerkens
    2 hours ago












  • Tauger (1991) “The 1932 Harvest” Slavic Review fn 53, p89: despite available grain and state attempts to ameliorate, the destroyed logistics network meant failed subsistence mandated famine. In contrast Venezuela is a non subsistence food importer: there the state has failed to even possess sufficient food for distribution. Bad comparison, Stalinists tried to relieve famine in 1932. Of course they’d destroyed the rural petite-bourgeois who were the logistics network that could have made that desire make any sense.
    – Samuel Russell
    2 hours ago












  • Why would you suggest that South American countries aren't over-populated? The site you link to over-estimates the Earth's carrying capacity by an order of magnitude or more.
    – jamesqf
    1 hour ago








1




1




It would certainly appear that Venezuela is currently experiencing a Stalinist-style Holomodor.
– Pieter Geerkens
2 hours ago






It would certainly appear that Venezuela is currently experiencing a Stalinist-style Holomodor.
– Pieter Geerkens
2 hours ago














Tauger (1991) “The 1932 Harvest” Slavic Review fn 53, p89: despite available grain and state attempts to ameliorate, the destroyed logistics network meant failed subsistence mandated famine. In contrast Venezuela is a non subsistence food importer: there the state has failed to even possess sufficient food for distribution. Bad comparison, Stalinists tried to relieve famine in 1932. Of course they’d destroyed the rural petite-bourgeois who were the logistics network that could have made that desire make any sense.
– Samuel Russell
2 hours ago






Tauger (1991) “The 1932 Harvest” Slavic Review fn 53, p89: despite available grain and state attempts to ameliorate, the destroyed logistics network meant failed subsistence mandated famine. In contrast Venezuela is a non subsistence food importer: there the state has failed to even possess sufficient food for distribution. Bad comparison, Stalinists tried to relieve famine in 1932. Of course they’d destroyed the rural petite-bourgeois who were the logistics network that could have made that desire make any sense.
– Samuel Russell
2 hours ago














Why would you suggest that South American countries aren't over-populated? The site you link to over-estimates the Earth's carrying capacity by an order of magnitude or more.
– jamesqf
1 hour ago




Why would you suggest that South American countries aren't over-populated? The site you link to over-estimates the Earth's carrying capacity by an order of magnitude or more.
– jamesqf
1 hour ago


















 

draft saved


draft discarded



















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35589%2fhow-can-communism-be-totalitarian%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

404 Error Contact Form 7 ajax form submitting

How to know if a Active Directory user can login interactively

TypeError: fit_transform() missing 1 required positional argument: 'X'