The basis of totalitarianism is the notion that a single system can represent a totality of wisdom and if applied in the "correct" manner create a paradise or ideal state. Totalitarian thinking can be recognized in any economic system that describes itself as a total solution.
Whether that total system is Marxism, Anarchism, Fascism, Islamicism, Fundamentalism -- or whatever; the pattern is the same. All such systems present themselves as total systems. They areusually believed by their followers as a system of belief, control and rules that if followed would create a Utopia. The followers usually believe that the "end justifies the means" and so often believe in their solution as a far off one to be attained after breaking "eggs" and other severe or even ruthless actions. And all of them create chaos and misery as they duke it out with each other, and as the proponants parse or re-examine their solutions rebel against earlier versions or even reverse individual elemnts of their utopian belief systems.
And one cannot deny the beauty of each of these systems. After all one cannot deny that an end state where the "Lion lies down with the lamb" or "to each according to his needs" is a beautiful end. There is something beautiful about a universal state where God rules and all submit to his rule. There is something sublime about a world where each person is independent and can fend for him/herself. Wouldn't we all love for the "State to Melt Away?" Or for the world to be a place where the "rain drops never disturb a clod?"
Despite the beauty of most of these systems. The results of the actions of the believers and their leaders in these systems are in nearly every case distopia and conflict. In practice all totalitarian systems become tyrannies. Why is this?
Well the answer to this conundrum lies in the teachings of Buddhism. Specifically the reason the world never reaches Utopia is that ideal systems are usually intensely idealistic. Seeking perfection they are rarely content with achievement. modest improvement, compromise or consensus. The proponants of such people have a wonderful vision. But that vision is like that of an Ant trying to understand the World Elephant. The Ant can understand an individual hair thoroughly and maybe have a good idea of the layout of a leg or tail, but the Ant's understanding of the Elephant as a whole will be limited.
If the whole is too big to fit into our heads. Then a total vision will be too abstract. And a specific vision will be too specific. The vision of totality is like a star system seen incompletely from a distance. It may look like an Elephant from our quarter, but in another quarter it may resemble Sagitarrious, or Virgo, or Arcturus. Thus each system claims totality, but is only a total system within the confines of it's limited applicability. That is why both mathematical and logical attempts to develop a total system understanding of human society usually fail. The Marxist understands things from his viewpoint. The "Monetarist" understands the role of money. The Keynesian understands the role of liquidity in causing problems. Each of these systems sets itself up in opposition to it's neighbors. There is never any synthesis because each assumes that it is superior in understanding and perfect in itself. Each theorist has an excellent system of ideas that add up to a partial understanding. And each insists that their views will lead to correct results if only they can "defeat" their opponents.
But all of these systems of ideas have their limitations.
They are like a weatherman who creates a weather model and insists that because it predicts the weather in one circumstance it will always predict the weather under all circumstances. No matter how many times the model fails in it's totality they keep applying the model -- and because these are interventionists models they create savage storms and chaos everywhere they touch.
The Buddha warned about this when he taught Buddhism and Buddhist sages have refined this subject over the years. The Buddha warned about the power of illusion/mara. And how it can influence even people at the highest stages of enlightenment. His realization of this truth was actually central to his enlightenment. Recognizing limits one can compensate for them and even transcend them. Knowing that there is an elephant we don't thoroughly grasp gives us hope we can grasp the elephant better through our dharma work. We can attain to Complete and final awakening, even though it means that we must "return" to a limited existence in the next moment. And we can accept the beauty and smartness of all the "ideologies" while helping them get over their tendancy to simplify and to see their limited understandings as a totality.
Chris
Posted by cholte at March 7, 2006 08:22 PMHi, Chris - I was thinking about Buddhism and totalitarianism at one point last week (also actually thinking about my association with a particular group and whether I wanted to continue making "totalitarian karma") The question of language came to me, particularly as it is used with the words "confused" and "slander". As in Orwell's 1984 where there is no word for "freedom" (except double-plus ungood) so there is consequently no thought of freedom -- where there is no language for good-faith doctrinal disagreement except "confused" and no word for difference of opinion exept for "slander", there is consequently no concept of these ideas. The ideas get squeezed out by the lack of language. FWIW, just babbling my Thursday babbling. Best, Byrd in LA
Posted by: Byrd in LA at March 9, 2006 01:26 PMChris,
Nice article.
I've been thinking about the tendency for idealism to devolve into fundametalism and totalitarianism. I watch members of various religions, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, who mean well, and espouse noble ideals, and yet, in their pursuit of perfection wind up violating the very principles they desire to put in place.
I started taking a course called "Utopia and Terror in the 20th Century" which postulates that one of the four factors underpinning modern regimes of terror IS an idealogy of Utopia, of the ideal (the other three factors being masses of people ready primed for "conversion", "machines" - i.e. mass media and bureacracies, "mobsters" - leaders motivated by a need for power that eclipses ethical considerations).
On a side note, in my readings, a topic that often arises is that people seek such ideologies, in part, by way of increasing self-esteem. If I have the best plan, the best way, am part of the movement leading to perfection, then it is easy to like myself. However, if I require that "fix" of being right, then, if challenged, I am likely to respond aggressively if not violently (in fact, I remember reading one social scientist writing in reference to genocide in the 20th century, noting that it is collective groups with huge self-esteem that are dangerous - when their concept of being perfect and ideal is challenged). It's an interesting line of thought.
I like the Buddhist concept of "seeing things as they are" and not clinging to the need for a perfect world. I think Chris's last paragraphs describe the why quite elegantly.
Kris
I had noticed a long time ago how ideologues will sometimes switch parties or even radically alter world views without changing their ruthless approach to life. I had observed this in the "Trotskyites", both ones I met who became Buddhists and others from earlier who founded the Libertarian movement or worked with William Buckly forming the ideology of the current new right. In all case their principle effect was to switch the attitude of progressives or conservatives from recognition of their own and the systems limits to one of a "total system."
Someone started me (I don't remember who or I'd give him/her credit) on this path by noting the relationship between the word "total" and "totalitarian." From there I noticed that these commonalities and this has helped me see the links between the ideologies that go beyond the surface differences.
Posted by: Chris at March 15, 2006 11:35 AM