Talk:Totalitarian democracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Peer review Totalitarian democracy has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/t/Talk%7ETotalitarian_democracy_cc16.html"