Re: CHAT: totalitarianism [was Re: Sexual terminology]

Thomas R. Wier scripsit:

> I'm not sure how I see how that distinction work out in practice,
> however.  It is IMHO hard to claim that Saddam Hussein is not a
> totalitarian despot, in that he has complete control over all
> aspects of human life in those parts of Iraq not patrolled by
> British and American aircraft, and only slightly less in those
> patrolled regions.  He has ruthelessly laid waste to whole regions
> of the country and to entire populations, with chemical weapons
> at times.
Yes, but AFAIK (and it's hard to get unbiased information here), he
is doing so solely in support of his own power.  He is a typical
tyrant, though equipped with means of mass destruction that historic
tyrants did not have.

Totalitarian regimes such as Hitler's Germany,
Stalin's Soviet Union, and Pol Pot's Cambodia destroyed their
own people in pursuit of a (twisted) ideal of racial or ideological purity.
Saddam employs terror to maintain his personal power, not as a fundamental
element of society pursued even against plain considerations of national
interest.

Nor has Saddam (again AFAIK) tried to invade or disrupt the family,
in the way that the Hitlerjugend or the Stalinist version of the
Komsomol did, setting children against their parents.

Tyranny, by setting the tyrant against his people in a relationship
of mutual fear, makes normal politics impotent.  Totalitarianism
breaks down all human relationships, making everyone (including the
current leaders) into a cipher, readily replaceable, and makes
normal politics literally impossible.

--
John Cowan           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@ccil.org
Please leave your values        |       Check your assumptions.  In fact,
   at the front desk.           |          check your assumptions at the door.
     --sign in Paris hotel      |            --Miles Vorkosigan

Reply