On Totalitarianism
Liable for innumerable deaths and unfathomable suffering, totalitarian regimes of the past and present implore man to question the nature of their existence and recurring presence in history. These political abominations fester under certain philosophical oversights and left unopposed, constitute a grave threat to liberty and progress. The regression into totalitarianism begins with man’s prideful assumption that his own mind is a force capable of repairing earthly suffering, followed by a rejection of objectivity, and the concession that the collective good outweighs that of the individual. Once established, totalitarianism leads to the inevitable implementation of pain as the most effective means of achieving and maintaining total control. Nevertheless, regimes founded upon such notions ultimately meet their demise through the dissolution of all reason, and the supreme immutability of human moral convictions.
Endowed with the innate capacity to appreciate and pursue that which is good, man finds the suffering and chaos of this imperfect world unsatisfactory. This observation fathers two diametric responses which govern his politics. The first being the recognition of the human capacity for evil, the propensity to ensure the protection of the individual, and the pursuit of higher aims through reason and action. The second response being the rejection of the divine and the worship of man’s own mind as the superior catalyst for change in the natural world. This second response gives rise to the totalitarian inclination to mold, shape, and transform the unsatisfactory world into one that aligns with his own liking.
The charge of total transformation begets a need for total, God-like, control. An undertaking which when previously implemented led to the unprecedented losses of human life recorded particularly during the twentieth-century. Whittaker Chambers, a man who in 1948, stood up against Communist agents within the US Government, revealed the spiritual and philosophical forces that drive totalitarian doctrine in his work Witness. He traced the roots of this ideology stating that Communism “is the vision of man’s mind displacing God as the creative intelligence of the world” (Chambers, 9). Furthermore, “It challenges him to prove it by reducing the meaningless chaos of nature, by imposing on it his rational will to order, abundance, security, peace. It is the vision of materialism. But it threatens, if man’s mind is unequal to the problems of man’s progress, that he will sink back into savagery” (Chambers, 10).
Deconstructing the roots of totalitarianism, Chambers reveals how such thinking presumes man’s own mind capable of conquering the immutable forces of nature around and within him. Such an assertion reflects immense hubris in his own intellect, and Chambers identifies the inherent problem with such logic. Upon attaining total control, should man’s intellect remain incapable of solving the plights of man, he will devolve back into barbary. History is far too full of examples where man’s failed attempts to control these external and internal forces brought about far greater catastrophe than initially present. The primary means by which totalitarian regimes emerge is in the recognition of worldly imperfection, the endeavor to repair said imperfection by attaining total control, followed by a regression into the very destructive tendencies which he sought to destroy.
In the prideful assumption that man’s intellect is capable of displacing God and purifying nature lies another misstep in the regression toward totalitarianism which manifests itself in the rejection of objectivity. By glorifying his own intellect as the creative power with which to judge and repair the world, man repudiates objectivity, and declares his mind the subjective means with which to decipher reality. C.S. Lewis expands upon this notion in his indictment of the moral relativism and value subjectivity preached throughout English primary schools. Lewis’ work The Abolition of Man, refutes the notion put forward by pseudonymous authors Gaius and Titius that all value statements are merely disguised feelings and do not reflect any objective foundation. Responding to this claim he states, “From this passage the schoolboy will learn about literature precisely nothing. What he will learn quickly enough, and perhaps indelibly, is the belief that all emotions aroused by local association are in themselves contrary to reason and contemptible” (Lewis, 4). In deeming all intellectual faculties negligible, Gaius and Titius effectively pull out the rug of objective truth from all statements of value. Whether intentionally or unwittingly this line of thinking leaves the individual without a standard to judge reality save for the shaky foundation of his own perception. As a result of this displacement, value statements become completely subjective to the experiencing individual.
Under these pretenses, man becomes powerless to himself, and any moral or ethical sentiments which he perceives are destroyed on arbitrary grounds. Consequently, man’s passions run free, unrestrained by reason. In order to subdue the chaos brought on by this unchecked appetite, a controller must be established to command human action, and since moral convictions have already been cast off as subjective, the controlling class will rule according to the pleasures and wills of the flesh.
George Orwell also addresses this notion in his dystopian novel 1984, in which The Party blatantly displays its rejection of objectivity. Through its implementation of ‘double-think’, The Party demands its citizens hold contradictory thoughts simultaneously. As a result, the only objective reality is that which The Party propagates. Rejecting objectivity, not only leads to the abolition of moral sentiments, but also allows corruptible institutions to misrepresent reality in order to validate their own agendas. When objective truth and moral convictions are cast off as arbitrary, the very fabric of reality becomes a malleable tool with which to propel the aims and agenda of the totalitarian state. Thus, regression toward totalitarianism builds upon the rejection of objectivity as this inherently leads to the disregard for morality and the distortion of reality.
Lewis, Chambers, and Orwell all warn of the consequences that inevitably follow man’s decision to cast-off objectivity and place his own mind upon the highest possible pedestal. The resulting inclination to control everything in order to alter the unsatisfactory world begets the need for such a far reaching level of control, the likes of which can only be achieved through pain. Pain is universally involuntary. Thus, it is the only means by which a regime can secure total control.
O’Brien, a member of the inner party in 1984, explains the motivation behind the Party’s implementation of pain to achieve total domination. While torturing the dissident protagonist Winston he states, “Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing” (Orwell, 266). Orwell recognized that only through the use of pain, can a regime ensure absolute power and total control. In the unpredictable chaos of the natural world, the only thing which man can control is that which he creates. For this very reason, O’Brien states that the minds of man must be re-constructed by the means of physical pain. The logic follows that the only vision for the future is a boot stamping on a human face, for eternity.
This poisonous idea corrupts and spreads like a virus once unleashed. One need only turn back the pages of history and examine the political catastrophes brought about by regimes seeking such all encompassing power during the twentieth-century. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who suffered first-hand under the socialist machine of Soviet Russia, depicts the extent to which man’s desire to control nature delivers unimaginable suffering in his work The First Circle. Solzhenitsyn invites the reader into the mind of Joseph Stalin, revealing the inner workings of the man responsible for killing millions of his own people. Once initiated, the destructive effects of totalitarianism compound to a greater and greater extent; in one particularly telling passage, Stalin responds to a question from his subordinate… “‘do you think we aren’t arresting people now?’ ‘You call that arresting-you’ll see! And when the war comes, we’ll be arresting still more people in other places. Strengthen the organizations!’” (Solzhenitsyn, 112). Responding to the chaos and brutality of nature, man’s prideful decision to place his own mind on the highest pedestal directs his polis on a war-path toward unquenchable control and compounding destruction. At each implementation of such doctrines, man reveals again and again, his own inability to overcome the immutable forces of his own nature.
Buried at the heart of the evolution toward totalitarianism, lies another grave misstep worthy of commentary. It is a notion closely linked to the relinquishment of objectivity, an admission that when conceded, opens the door to unthinkable bloodshed. The notion that, the value of the collective outweighs the value of the individual. This concession allows for any number of individuals to be sacrificed on the altar of the collective good. Such thinking transforms human beings into expendable pawns in the bloodthirsty conquest of the controllers.
Among those guilty of implementing such doctrine is Pol Pot who maliciously killed one-fourth of his population and in the spirit of collectivism was quoted saying, “To keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss” (Criddle, Joan D, & Butt, 93). Under Pot’s regime, every individual citizen became a nonessential grain of rice in the larger bowl. In an effort to preserve his rule and quell the intellectuals whom he deemed threatening, Pot murdered every citizen who wore glasses. Overshadowed by the likes of Stalin and Mao, yet equally ruthless and despicable, Pot’s regime represents the same tyrannical implementation of the same doctrine, the same creed, the same response to suffering: ‘it is necessary to change the world’. In explicitly conceding that the collective good outweighs the individual good, Pot invited even greater pain and suffering into the lives of his own citizens than ever existed previously. The unending purges, intentional starvations, brutal torture, and continuous violence implemented by totalitarian regimes of the past truly reveal the consequences of replacing objective ideals with the corruptible minds of imperfect men and conceding that each individual is expendable for the good of the collective. The catastrophic failures of these regimes also exhibits the utter incapacity of human minds at repairing the suffering and pain of the natural world. The desire to orchestrate nature inevitably leads to the use of pain and fear to gain total control. Yet the very forces which enable totalitarianism to take root, also lead to their inevitable downfall.
Regimes built on the relegation of reality to the subjectivity of the human mind, guarantee their own demise, for the ultimate consequence of said relegation is the total dissolution of reason. In his fictional work That Hideous Strength, C.S. Lewis portrays the formation of a totalitarian organization whose motives and processes mirror that which he outlines in The Abolition of Man. Rejecting objectivity and morality, the totalitarian organization, N.I.C.E, implements science as a tool to propel its own agenda: the domination of nature and the transformation of man. Lewis details the demise of this organization toward the end of the novel originating from the total destruction of their language. Poetry often reveals more than history, and Lewis poetically demonstrates the end-game of organizations that reject objectivity in hubristic worship of their own minds. With no guiding frame of reference to ensure cohesive communication, the salopsist totalitarians are left unable to communicate with one another at all (Lewis, 325). The nature of this downfall reveals yet another consequence of those who worship their own minds above all else. The objectivity of language is lost in a sea of subjective interpretation.
Similarly, totalitarianism falls at the hand of man’s innate inclination to discern right from wrong. Aristotle asserted that man knows what is ethical and virtuous by his senses, and Chambers argued that a singular force played the most pivotal role in turning minds away from the clutches of Communism. That force being the screams of the oppressed. “What Communist has not heard those screams?”… “He hears them for the first time. For they do not merely reach his mind. They pierce beyond. They pierce to his soul. He says to ·himself: ‘Those are not the screams of man in agony. Those are the screams of a soul in agony’” (Chambers, 14–15). The human capacity to pronounce the screams of the innocent as unjust reaches beyond race and religion, national borders and tribal differences. The existence of this transcendent moral tendency calls into question the entire notion of the subjectivism upon which totalitarianism relies.
If man’s mind exists merely as the subjective gauge for reality and each man experiences his own reality which independently shapes his views and feelings. What is one to do with the ethical and moral sentiments which appear common across humanity? C.S. Lewis referred to such natural laws as the Tao. Although such virtues vary slightly, and remain subject to immeasurable corruption, their universal existence begets absolute significance. With regard to the validity of the Tao Lewis states, “I am not trying to prove its validity by the argument from common consent. Its validity cannot be deduced. For those who do not perceive its rationality, even universal consent could not prove it” (Lewis, 34). Moral sentiments equip man with the discernment to observe the suffering of the natural world and rule it unsatisfactory. Yet slipping down the path toward totalitarianism, man arbitrarily relegates this capacity to the subjective in hubristic glorification of his own mind. A hypocritical contention given that, many of those who discredit objective moral sentiments, hold some form of ethical standard which they deem immune from discrediton.
Shouldering the seemingly noble task of transforming the world and mankind, totalitarian regimes of the past and present continually prove how utterly inadequate their minds are at such an undertaking. Seeking to dominate the chaotic forces of nature and the malevolence of mankind, men fail miserably from the outset. Revealing to a far-greater extent their own corruptibility and degeneracy, regimes founded on the rejection of objectivity, the quest for total control, and the preservation of the collective notoriously turn all that they touch to suffering and misery. The unfortunate reality of man’s predicament remains, his mind stands incapable of mending the features of nature which he deems unsatisfactory. His attempts to do so truly reflect a desire to become God. Yet, men are not angels, nor are they governed by angels. Therefore, a political model succeeds not by achieving total control and placing the collective above the individual, but by limiting the scope of governmental control and by preserving the natural rights of the individual.
Regimes which acknowledge the human capacity for evil, and seek to protect the individual, deliver to their citizens boundless possibility for happiness and freedom. As Alexis De Tocqueville stated, “Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude” (Tocqueville, 546). The establishment of political systems aimed at protecting the life, liberty, and property endowed to each individual allow for the pursuit of one’s own aims and the cultivation of one’s posterity. Coupling these protections with the insurrection of strict limitations on the reaches and powers of governments provide humanity with the ideal foundations for a life of prosperity, freedom, and happiness. In the words of the German poet Holderlin, “What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven” (qtd. in Hayek, 76).
Works Cited:
(1) Chambers, Whittaker. “A Letter to My Children.” Witness, Regnery History, 2014, pp. 9–10.
(2) Lewis, C.S. The Abolition of Man, Oxford University Press, 1943, pp. 4, 34.
(3) Orwell, George. 1984, Signet Classics, 1949, pp. 266
(4) Solzenicyn Aleksandr Isaevic. The First Circle. Harper & Row, 1968. pp. 112
(5) Criddle, Joan D., and Butt. To Destroy You Is No Loss: the Odyssey of a Cambodian Family. East/West Bridge Pub House, 2009, pp.
(6) Lewis, C.S. That Hideous Strength, The Bodley Head, 1945, pp. 325
(7) Tocqueville, Alexis de, and Isaac Kramnick. Democracy in America. W.W. Norton, 2008. pp. 546
(8) Hayek, F.A. The Road to Serfdom. The University of Chicago Press, 2007. pp. 76
