Talk:Totalitarian democracy

Just a terrible article - giving the impression that Talmon argued the opposite of what he did argue.

The examples of "dissent" in the United States that the article gives (the Communists of the 1940s, then Herbert Marcuse and the pro Marxist elements of the 1960s) are exactly what Talmon would have considered part of the tradition of "totalitarian democracy" in that they claimed to speak for "the people" and believed in a "total state" (although some of them did not use the word "state" for their collectivism). Clue - North Vietnam (or the Soviet Union) was not what Talmon had in mind by "Liberal Democracy", and nor were the Black Panthers, the SDS or the Weather Underground. All of whom denied the legitimate existence of civil society - i.e. the distinction between voluntary institutions (such as churches, or business enterprises, or non political clubs and societies) and coercion.90.217.200.219 (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

untitled

Fundamentals of totalitarian democracy and comparison with liberal democracy.

---

The term "totalitarian democracy" is obscure enough that I would expect this article rather than simply saying "totalitarian democracy is..." to explain who coined the term and roughly who uses it. Without that, this comes off as awfully fringy. -- Jmabel 06:30, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

NPOV

User jxg has added an npov tag, but has not indicated exactly what s/he disputes. I will admit to being slightly amused, since I wrote this only to rescue an interesting title from the VfD bin...  :) Denni

Without attempting to speak for jxg, the following is certainly POV:

"In fact, history seems to bear out that it is the political, economic, and military élite who define the general will."

In fact? Clearly, this is a contentious opinion. Is it Tlmon's opinion (in which case, say so, and it clearly belongs in the article) or not (in which case, at most, it should be introduced with "One could make the case that...", not "In fact."

The article then continues:

"The general is not asked to guide the plow; should the peasant be asked to lead the troops? And to what extent is the citizen of a liberal democracy free from the manipulation of government and business in his life? There are many in the West who have taken up arms against their own countrymen because of what they perceived as inappropriate and ongoing governmental interference in their lives."

This is all a bit confusing. I think there is a shift of narratvie voice from sentence to sentence:

• Is the first, presumably rhetorical, question yours, Talmon's, or that of the hypothetical adherent to the philosophy of totalitarian democracy? I suspect the last.
• The second question appears to be in a different narrative voice, either yours or Talmon's, again it is unclear which; the question appears also to be rhetorical, because...
• Then comes a sentence in the form of a statement, but whose relevance either to the preceding question (which it seems not to answer) and to the rest of the article is unclear. Are these "many" supposed to be adherent to the philosophy of totalitarian democracy? Or (I suspect) people reacting to, and rebelling against it? This could all be much clearer.

-- Jmabel 07:12, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Continuing my critique...

"The mid-twentieth century, following WWII, saw greater ideological polarization between nations than at perhaps any other time in history. Yet the irony was, and is, that... "

Can't this just be "The Cold War saw a great ideological polarization between the so-called "Free World" states and the Communist States, but..." Is there really any need for "perhaps any other time in history"? Are you really saying this was more of a polarization than between Islam and Christendom during the Middle Ages? Why be unnecessarily contentious?

"One issue fundamental to both liberal and totalitarian democracy is that of liberty. While it might seem on first examination that there is no place in totalitarian democracy for freedom, and that liberal democracy is the ultimate expression of freedom, neither statement is in fact true."

Obviously POV. Is this paraphrasing Talmon or what? If so, fine, just make that clear. If not, then, yes, this article is in danger of turning into a POV essay, not an encyclopedia article. Not necessarily unsalvageable, but needs work.

"Liberal democracy... emphasizes... economic characteristics [of freedom]."

Certainly not in theory. Again, is this Talmon's contention about actually existing liberal democratic states, or what? Similar comments about much of what follows. If you are summarizing a book, fine, and say so. Otherwise, I'd agree with the NPOV notice.

"At the beginning of the Twentieth Century, Western nations were almost without exception totalitarian democracies."

Tolman's contention, or what? I certainly disagree. Austria-Hungary was, explicitly, only minimally democratic. Spain was a near-absolute monarchy. Also, are you (or Talmon) arguing that "totalitarian democracy" is an idealized model (what I'd been presuming up to now, and even made a "friendly edit" to that effect) or a model that actually applies quite well to past or present states (in which case you should spell out what states best approximate the model). Also, "Western" here is a bit vague, and should only be left this vague if the vagueness is Talmon's.

"One needs only to examine the social and political attitudes of the time toward religious and cultural minorities, the poor, and the socially outcast to see the extent to which the narrow, fast-flowing stream of political, ethnic, and cultural purity flowed through the heartlands of the great nations."

Well, yes, but are you saying that the "nation state" model (always in some conflict with the "liberal" half of "liberal democracy") is inherently totalitarian? Don't we already have a perfectly good word for that: "nationalistic"?

As for the last paragraph, it seems awfully POV. I think there are NPOV ways to put the same content across, but I'd like to see the points I've raised addressed, and be convinced the article is salvageable, before I get into it. -- Jmabel 07:46, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

--- Your points are well taken. The only issue I struggle with is that, as I say, such a topic strikes me as inherently NPOV, and I feel that the article as it stands lets liberal democracy off too easily, especially since, from a Western perspective (from which most of us come), totalitarian democracy already tends to wear a black hat. Just its label will be enough to color some people's thinking. No political invention is perfect; how, then, can one discuss in an unbiased manner such relatively recent events by liberal democratic nations, such as France's Pacific nuclear testing, America's invasion of Panama, or Britain's actions against one of its own citizens vis-a-vis Iraq's WOMDs? Denni 20:06, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)

One can do this by quoting appropriate, reasonably well known authors, rather than by having the opinions come from the "voice" of the article writer. See Age of Extremes for an example of where I did this to a previously very POV article. -- Jmabel 13:40, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I like your most recent edit - it expands the point very well, and provides a smooth and satisfying wrapup statement. Denni 03:38, 2004 Mar 5 (UTC)

---

I removed the NPOV dispute tag, because jxg is not a party to any discussion here over NPOV (and never was). However, anybody that is working on (or discussing) the article (like maybe Jmabel?) is absolutely free to put it back as far as I'm converned. I'm not going to revert anybody that's actually invovled with the article! -- Toby Bartels 23:52, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's gotten a lot better, and I won't restore the tag (at least not right now), but I think that a lot of the points I raised above are still valid & still should be addressed in the article. -- Jmabel 05:36, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

If one wishes to tag a page as NPOV, then one is obliged to provide rationale for doing so. Denni 03:05, 2004 May 7 (UTC)

Here's a good rationale:

"At the beginning of the twenty-first century, few Western governments would deny the label of liberal democracy, and in many respects, it is a fair analysis. Governments are more open and responsive to the concerns of their citizenry than has traditionally been the case.

At the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first, the ubiquity of the mass media, and in particular, its immediacy and visual power, have been influential in shaping political policy in nations around the world. Modern nations, whether they like it or not, have become more accountable, not just to the rest of the world, but to their own citizens for their actions, and it has become increasingly difficult to get away with objectionable behavior such as the 1991 Kurdish massacre in Iraq."

Definitely POV. See Prison rape for just one example.71.141.132.138 07:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Listen, I don't have time at this particular moment to look at the NPOV dispute, but I recommend restoring the tag.71.141.132.138 07:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

American hegemony

This paragraph was added to the article on by :

"Moreover, a different aspect of 'totalitarian democracy' has come to be known with respect to powerful states that function by democratic principles internally, but act with force and hegemony outside of its borders. The United States is the current superpower state, with a long history of operating with near-impunity outside of its borders, at the same time that it espouses and prescribes the application of its own internal democratic principles to other states. The key point is that even should all states develop solid and standardized democratic principles, the international wealth and power control systems remain firmly in the hands of the master society. This is a rather common external view of the United States, which claims that it's Dulles-Kennan-influenced policies of social, military, and economic diplomacy, are equivalent to hegemony, almost regardless of the internal democratic process by which the US elects its representatives."

I believe this paragraph is an accurate reflection of the current state of affairs, but I also consider it highly POV, and have replaced it with this paragraph:

"Moreover, a different aspect of 'totalitarian democracy' is portrayed by powerful states that function by democratic principles internally, but act with force and hegemony outside their borders. Both the former Soviet Union and the United States have enjoyed so-called "superpower" status and both have had a long, well-documented history of acting both overtly and covertly to "protect the national interest" outside of their borders. At the same time, the United States espouses and prescribes the application of its own internal democratic principles to other nations. But even should all nations develop and embrace standardized democratic principles and practices, whatever nation has the military or economic capacity to set expectations for the behaviors of other nations has historically chosen to do so. This is a rather common external interpretation of American policy, a view which holds that America's Dulles-Kennan-influenced social, military, and economic foreign policies are equivalent to hegemony, and bear no relationship to the internal democratic processes by which the US elects its representatives."

Please comment.

I certainly think this is an improvement. -- Jmabel 06:30, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Freedom to fail, etc.

Dwindrim recently added the following:

In the extreme, this freedom is also the freedom to fail. Just as individuals are free to reap the reward of a democratic and capitalistic system with no financial assistance from the government, so too will a strictly liberal democracy refuse state capital to aid in individual crisis. In a true liberal democracy, there will be no social assistance, no federal health care plan, and no old age pension.

The way it sits in the article, I can't tell whether it is presented as the view of Talmon (who I have not read, but I'm ready to accept it if you tell me in good faith that he said this -- just let's make that clear) or is being stated as fact, in which case it is a controversial/POV claim about the nature of a "true"/"strict" liberal democracy presented in the narrative voice of the article. "Liberal democracy" does not necessarily imply the politics of the U.S. Libertarian Party. And even they have no objection to charity or to mutual aid societies, simply to these things being government functions. -- Jmabel 04:26, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I see your point. (And no, it's not Talmon's perspective.) I'd note that each of the examples I've given are examples of tax dollars redistributed to individuals by law; in other words, explicitly government functions. Would you feel more comfortable with something like "it is conceivable that citizens of a state which is liberal democratic in its most formal sense would not enjoy many of the social programs such as &etc many Western citizens take for granted."? Denni 05:33, 2004 May 8 (UTC)

Dwindrim, I'm not sure you and I will easily reach consensus, but let me go on a bit. This is an article about a political system, not an economic system. And it's not an article about liberal democracy. Whether liberal democracy is or is not compatible with some degree of social safety net seems an odd topic to take up here. (If it were in Talmon's work, or that of another significant theorist of totalitarian democracy, it would be relevant.) In practice, to the best of my knowledge, virtually all actual liberal democracies in the last 100 years or so have had some degree of social safety net, so the "In a true liberal democracy, there will be..." seems very tendentious. Our own article on liberal democracy begins "Liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy in which majority rule is qualified by respect for liberal rights such as freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of religion, the right to private property and privacy, as well as equality before the law and due process under the rule of law." None of that seems in any way incompatible with a social safety net. -- Jmabel 06:01, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel, I hope you weren't looking for a good scrap, because you'd be disappointed. I do belive I fell prey to the very fallacy I've been trying to argue people out of for twenty years - "It's an economic system, stupid, not a political one." You are absolutely correct, and I will remove the paragraph from the article after I save this page. Denni 01:26, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

Nope, not looking for a scrap, just thought I'd fallen into one when your proposed edit didn't really strike me a lot better than the original. Looks like on re-reading, you reached the same conclusion. Great! -- Jmabel 01:31, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Citations

I've been looking for other relevant citations for the article. I ran across a mention in The Nation (June 21, 2004, p.26) that Columbia University political scientist Giovanni Sartori has used this term in his Mala tempora ("Evil Times"), (described as "a collection of his articles from the daily paper Corriere della Sera") to describe "the Berlusconi phenomenon". Is anyone familiar with his work? If so, is there anything worth adding to the article? -- Jmabel 22:15, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Issues

Here was the phrase:

In the West, in the meantime, Americans were under siege by Senator Joseph McCarthy and others who had made it their mission to rid the United States of Communists and Communist sympathizers.

Problems: (1) In the West, Americans were under siege...

(2) by Senator McCarthy and others

(3) made it their mission

(4) rid the United States

Actually, the revised text as it now stands moreless takes care of all the problems. I don't wish to take too much time, but Senator McCarthy appointing himself the guardian of Western Civilization by holding 180 million Americans under siege in order to "rid the United States", as the arcticle suggested, had serious NPOV problems. The article, in fact, totally ignored the Constitutional issues as to how the American people have elected a Congress, which then divides itself into Congressional Committees, and then authorizes investigations on behalf of the American people who elected the Congress, etc., etc. etc., etc., etc. But the issues appear O.K. as of now. Thank you. Nobs01 17:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Modern contexts and Western powers

The section Modern contexts and Western powers cites no sources. I find it unlikely that Talmon, in a 1952 book, predicted all the developments described. Looks like WP:OR to me (and POV, too). Qwertyus 15:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not only does it not cite sources but this section is highly subjective/POV and doesn't seem to add anything to the article. For example an argument can be made that torture is not only known but regularly used by the west and its proxies. For example, see the recent use of torture and the more general article on torture. Further, it may add to the argument if you define what constitutes torture. Some people, for example, do not believe that certain techniques which may be defined as torture is torture, such as sleep deprivation, which many Americans apparently don't see as torture. Further, the declaration that the media makes governments more accountable is highly debateable. See for example, discussions on media manipulation and [1] embedded journalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.61.25 (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Social Contract

This article misrepresents Social Contract. If Talmon did in fact argue something as absurd as that Rousseau considered the State's interest to be equivalent to the general interest, Talmon should be quoted. Rousseau favored neither simple faith in a newly general-will-minded existing state, nor, as is the common misconception, majority rule(reiterated "tyranny of the majority") Instead, he advocated a system of such equality that there would be no minority to oppress. If, as was earlier said, the "roots" of totalitarian majority rule can be traced to Rousseau, that's something other than his actually advocating it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomblikebomb (talk • contribs) 22:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; also this interpretation of the social contract is inconsistent w/ what has been agreed upon on Rousseau's own wikipedia site, which correctly points out that:

"Although Rousseau argues that sovereignty (or the power to make the laws) should be in the hands of the people, he also makes a sharp distinction between the sovereign and the government. The government is composed of magistrates, charged with implementing and enforcing the general will. The "sovereign" is the rule of law, ideally decided on by direct democracy in an assembly." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.10.176.182 (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Excised §

Criticism of Talmon

Many historians, including Victor Gourevitch, have challenged the notion that Rousseau advocated totalitarian democracy. They maintain that such authoritarianism is incongruous with most if not all of his works, many of which are neither explicitly anti-religious nor conformist. It is seen to be an exercise in revisionism and contextonomy. Furthermore, it has been suggested that Talmon's emphases on tradition and religiosity are in themselves an anathema to progressive thought. However "Progressive" thought has historically been hostile to individual liberty (as opposed to the collective "liberty" of "the people") - see the American Progressive movement of Richard Ely and so on, itself an outgrowth of German philosophical and political thought of the collectivist (or semi collectivist) sort. As for Rousseau - his belief that the "General Will" (what people should believe - as decided by the "Law Giver")trumps the "will of all" (the actual opinions of ordinary people - hence "forced to be free" with "free" being defined as obeying the Law Giver or being part of the collective) is clear in his "The Social Contract". Also Rousseau's hostility to private employment (as a form of slavery or serfdom) and his belief that working for the collective was some sort of freedom, is also a matter of record.90.217.200.219 (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Totalitarian democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040520221240/http://www.new-thinking.org/journal/totalitariandemocracy.html to http://www.new-thinking.org/journal/totalitariandemocracy.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Totalitarian China (or its minions?) have hijacked this article

After reading Talmon again and in detail, I see that much emphasis has been put on critiqueing and misreading Talmon. There are various sections in the article that have nothing to do with Talmon's conception, and I suspect that these sections have been edited in to push a specific political narrative by forces that have an interest in discrediting Talmon's ideas.

Under the heading "Differences in Democratic Philosophy" one should expect a presentation of Talmon's idea that in the aftermath of the French Revolution two concurrent yet separate political philosophies of democracy have evolved, namely liberal and totalitarian democratic thought - both of which refer the idea of freedom and liberty, but with very distinct connotations. These should be quoted and spelled out in this section, but they are largely (and painfully) missing...

Yet, instead we read "In his paper Advances in Chinese Social Sciences (2001), Mao Shoulong, a professor of Public Policy at Renmin University of China, takes a different position."

This has nothing to do with Talmon! And - for what it's worth - Shoulong is neither a renowned scholar (as can easily be shown by tracking the number of citations he gets in Google Scholar) nor an expert on Talmon.

Talmon has neither known Shoulong and would likely subsume Shoulong's idea of an equality-oriented democracy' under his totalitarian heading as soon as the telos (or messianic utopia) of equality (which supposedly someday is maintained to lead to a greater degree of universal liberty in an equity-based or equality-of-outcome-based scenario) prevails over the concept of individual civil rights, liberties and interests (which may likely differ from society- or state-prescribed virtues and conceptions of equity)!

Talmon himself does not investigate liberal democracies in detail (and he says so), but from his investigation of the totalitarian philosophies of democracy one can clearly derive that he sees the philosophy underlying liberal democratic thought as a favourable and preferable counterpoint. Keeping this in mind, Shoulong's purported idea that "rights and freedoms of people ..." (i.e. basic individual civil liberties) "...ought not be held hostage to traditions and social arrangements" is nothing but 1984-like Newsspeak aimed at discrediting Talmon's idea of liberal democracy and formulated in this way only to lend credit to the idea that a messianic, totalitarian democracy can be a good thing.

Rogmann (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

"Democratic fascism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Democratic fascism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 1 § Democratic fascism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hildeoc (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Anarcho-monarchism

Anarcho-monarchism redirects here, but is not defined. Either the term should be defined, or the redirect should be deleted. ZFT (talk) 06:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)