I need your opinion! Im drafting a part for my books intro to add some clarity. Tell me if my explanation logically flows well: Because the totalitarian worldview is traced to a state of mind, it must be noted that whats “totalitarian,” per se, is a mental state that combines the required extreme with a susceptible ideology. An ideology alone isnt necessarily enough to diagnose the condition. An Ideal can be expressed as authoritarian or totalitarian; and either outcome depends on the temperament of the autocrat. Its the difference between a Stalin and a Khrushchev. Both presided under the auspices of Marxism-Leninism, however, Stalins mental leanings steered Soviet Russia in a totalitarian direction. Once in power, Khrushchev reversed course toward a more moderate authoritarianism. Upon ascension, it would be inaccurate to call Khrushchevs Russia totalitarian. Whats important to note: an ideology itself can have high susceptibility to be bent towards totalitarian results, e.g. communism isnt necessarily “totalitarian,” but its premises are highly susceptible to temperaments that are. Christianity, in a limited sense, is the same: liberal versions may arise, but its conjoining of the Old Testament makes it highly open for totalitarian influences to commandeer. Likewise, rather than holding pure susceptibility, an ideology, per its written content, may be inherently totalitarian, e.g. Nazism (Mien Kamph) or the Old Testament.
Posted on: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 00:20:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015