Tornado Alley (PROG)

[fuagf]

The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951)

"Oh Hannah, if you'd only lived long enough to see how well that statement has held up. The banality of social media. "

That’s Hannah Arendt’s ideal subject, that person for whom the difference
between truth and falsity no longer matters.
— Helen Rosner, The New Yorker, 5 Nov. 2021

Identifying false claims can be difficult since, misinformation usually contains
elements of both truth and falsity, Bergstrom said.
— Kristen Rogers, CNN, 29 Aug. 2021
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/falsity

Main article: The Origins of Totalitarianism .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origins_of_Totalitarianism

Arendt's first major book, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951),[188] examined the roots of Stalinism and Nazism, structured as three essays, "Antisemitism", "Imperialism" and "Totalitarianism". Arendt argues that totalitarianism was a "novel form of government," that "differs essentially from other forms of political oppression known to us such as despotism, tyranny and dictatorship"[241] in that it applied terror to subjugate mass populations rather than just political adversaries.[242][243] Arendt also maintained that Jewry was not the operative factor in the Holocaust, but merely a convenient proxy because Nazism was about terror and consistency, not merely eradicating Jews.[243][244] Arendt explained the tyranny using Kant's phrase "Radical Evil",[245] by which their victims became "Superfluous People".[246][247] In later editions she enlarged the text[248] to include her work on "Ideology and Terror: A novel form of government"[242] and the Hungarian Revolution, but then published the latter separately.[249][250][251]

Criticism of Origins has often focused on its portrayal of the two movements, Hitlerism and Stalinism, as equally tyrannical.[252]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Arendt#The_Origins_of_Totalitarianism_(1951)

This article illustrates with clarity some common denominators between our societies today and fascism and totalitarian regimes.

Some excerpts here .. European fascism was popular because, for those not persecuted, it was a welfare state
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=167097658

Different excerpt's farther below, which i see as supporting Arendt's comparison of Hitlerism and Stalinism in Origins. Note also the overlaps between policies of those two and of both of the two major parties in all developed western nations today. It strikes me it's the obvious Venn intersections .. https://www.lucidchart.com/blog/venn-diagram-symbols-explained .. which make it so easy for dishonest (or badly misguided) conservatives ..

conix, Trump under Leninist influence. How many really understand that?
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=165324875 .. to falsely portray Hitler as a socialist.

And to falsely portray Democrats as fascists .. https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=166393876 .

And why this board strives continuously to set those miscreants straight .. https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=166394067 .

Different excerpts from, European fascism was popular because, for those not persecuted, it was a welfare state

[...]

Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP) promised to serve the entire German people, but the German fascist vision of “the people” did not include Jews and other “undesirables.” They promised to create a “people’s community” (Volksgemeinschaft) that would overcome the country’s divisions. The fascists also pledged to fight the Depression and contrasted its activism on behalf of the people’s welfare with the meekness and austerity of the government and the socialists. By the 1932 elections, these appeals to protect the German people helped the Nazis become the largest political party, and the one with the broadest socioeconomic base.

When Hitler became chancellor in Jan. 1933, the Nazis quickly began work-creation and infrastructure programs. They exhorted business to take on workers, and doled out credit. Germany’s economy rebounded and unemployment figures improved dramatically: German unemployment fell from almost six million in early 1933 to 2.4 million by the end of 1934; by 1938, Germany essentially enjoyed full employment. By the end of the 1930s, the government was controlling decisions about economic production, investment, wages, and prices. Public spending was growing spectacularly.

Nazi Germany remained capitalist. But it had also undertaken state intervention in the economy unprecedented in capitalist societies. The Nazis also supported an extensive welfare state (of course, for “ethnically pure” Germans). It included free higher education, family and child support, pensions, health insurance, and an array of publicly supported entertainment and vacation options. All spheres of life, economy included, had to be subordinated to the “national interest” (Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz), and the fascist commitment to foster social equality and mobility. Radical meritocratic reforms are not usually thought of as signature Nazi measures, but, as Hitler once noted, the Third Reich has “opened the way for every qualified individual—whatever his origins—to reach the top if he is qualified, dynamic, industrious, and resolute.”

Largely for these reasons, up till 1939, most Germans’ experience with the Nazi regime was probably positive. The Nazis had seemingly conquered the Depression and restored economic and political stability. As long as they could prove their ethnic “purity” and stayed away from overt shows of disloyalty, Germans typically experienced National Socialism not as a tyranny and terror, but as a regime of social reform and warmth.

There can be no question that violence and racism were essential traits of fascism. But for most Italians, Germans and other European fascists, the appeal was based not on racism—much less ethnic cleansing—but on the fascists’ ability to respond effectively to crises of capitalism when other political actors were not. Fascists insisted that states could and should control capitalism, that the state should and could promote social welfare, and that national communities needed to be cultivated. The fascist solution ultimately was, of course, worse than the problem. In response to the horror of fascism, in part, New Deal Democrats in the United States, and social democratic parties in Europe, also moved to re-negotiate the social contract. They promised citizens that they would control capitalism and provide social welfare policies and undertake other measures to strengthen national solidarity—but without the loss of freedom and democracy that fascism entailed.

The lesson for the present is clear: you can’t beat something with nothing. If other political actors don’t come up with more compelling solutions to the problems of capitalism, the popular appeal of the resurgent Right-wing will continue. And then the analogy with fascism and democratic collapse of the interwar years might prove even more relevant than it is now.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=158824544

The strong resemblance between the desires of Trump's white Christian cult and Hitler's 'racially purifying' efforts is clear.

And why it is important for American capitalism to deal with extreme poverty in the United States of America.