The Six Marks of Totalitarianism

During the summer of 2020, as the presidential election drew near, I read a number of books on government and politics. There was one subject that I was particularly interested in: government gone wrong. I read books on totalitarianism – the ultimate form of government tyranny – and science fiction on where government ‘could’ take us. The study was terrifying, but deeply educational. From my study, I identified six distinguishing marks of totalitarianism.

Some readers may be astonished, but I found that some of these marks are already present in the American political parties – both on the left and the right, among both liberals and conservatives. This is not to say that all of the marks are equally present on both sides. Nor is this to say that we are presently living under totalitarianism (we are not). I am simply observing that there are dangerous tendencies which we must avoid very carefully. I will not tell you where I have found these tendencies – that is for you to consider. I may, however, drop some hints along the way.

1 – The ‘Train of History’  

Dictators, tyrants, and absolutist parties often speak of history with clear winners and losers, and they urge us not to be on the ‘wrong side’ of history. They are on the right side, their side will win (which, in the short term, is often a self-fulfilling prophecy), and woe to those who end up on the ‘wrong’ side. Those who disagree with them are ‘hopelessly behind their time…spending their lives uselessly.’

Sometimes this thinking can be more nuanced, focused not merely on history, but on science. Those who disagree are fighting against ‘eternal laws of nature and life’ (as the Nazis taught, in their efforts to eradicate Jews). Some great and timeless ‘principle’ or ‘law’ is marching forward relentlessly, and those who fight this unstoppable force will certainly lose (often, the dictator will ‘help the process along’ by just liquidating those outdated souls).

2 – The ‘Savior-Leader’

The party is exemplified by some great leader who is the ultimate Savior for the people. He has risen to the challenge, aligned himself with the ‘right side’ of history, and for this, of course, he deserves absolute allegiance. By stopping the ‘enemy’ (often his fellow countrymen who disagreed with him), he has proven to be a real patriot, and there is a strong emphasis on this figure who has, and can, set everything right. Allegiance to the party is important, but practically, one is not really allied to the party unless one is allied to the leader.

3 – Flexible Ideology

The party is the absolute broker of truth, but truth is not seen as objective or fixed. Rather, it is used as a constant ‘test’ to ensure the ‘fidelity’ of the party member. The party plays fast and loose with the truth; it demands both gullibility and cynicism from its members. When it proclaims the ‘facts,’ it demands that everyone agree with the facts; but tomorrow the ‘facts’ may be different, and everyone must agree with the new facts, while rejecting that they ever believed the old ‘facts.’ The only thing that can be believed is the party (or party leader) who always knows what is ‘true.’

Sometimes the leader makes outrageous claims – but there is always some hidden way to justify them. Other times, the party denies verifiable facts – even plain common sense – but still demands allegiance. In this way, flexible ideology demands gullibility from its followers. Those who disagree with the new ‘facts’ – or even dare to say that things were once different – are party infidels, those who deny the new orthodoxy. When the orthodoxy switches (as it inevitably does), the party member can laugh it off, cynically assuming that the previous false ‘facts’ were only a stage in the party’s thinking, a strategic approach to reality that was necessary at that time but not ultimately true.

In this way, the party is always changing the definition of what is ‘true’ in society. Eventually it pushes the boundaries of plain common sense, denying what everyone knows is true – and using this absurdity to test the allegiance of the party members, who have learned not only to challenge the new orthodoxy, but actually believe that it is, and always has been, the truth.

4 – Racist/Classist Thinking

Totalitarians are not merely racist – they are far worse. They fundamentally understand all people in terms of race (or class). History is the record of racial or class struggle, and the effort to be free of oppression (or to place others under oppression) constitutes the underlying theme of history. Totalitarians then use this thinking to describe their own efforts at domination as the ultimate struggle against oppression. Because they cannot (or refuse to) understand the world apart from racist or classist thinking, they inevitably place every individual in a ‘group,’ into which he is inevitably bound. He is guilty, or innocent, because of who he is, not what he does. (This will later become very convenient when the party decides to eliminate entire groups of society).   

5 – Political Silencing

Since there is only one ‘right side’ of history, those who disagree with it are on the ‘wrong side.’ They are fighting against natural law or principle, and hence they are hindering the progress of society. Ultimately (says the totalitarian), they will not succeed, since they are fighting against nature itself. Since their destruction is guaranteed, it really does not hurt to speed the process along – one is merely moving the date of execution up by a few days. Of course, in a truly totalitarian society, this means that the adversary ends up in a gulag or concentration camp. But until it reaches that moment, the totalitarian does not hesitate to silence his opponent in any way, describing his differing opinions with all forms of slander, demanding his silence, and even resorting to threats and violence. It is not merely the speech itself which is illegal: even unorthodox thoughts are dangerous, because they challenge the progression of history and the progress of society. Hence the totalitarian creates a new form of criminality: the thought crime.

6 – Rewriting History

In keeping with their flexible ideology, totalitarians believe that history is subjective, not objective. They claim that history is only a random collection of facts arranged in a certain order by a prejudiced historian who is trying to prove a point. History has no innate lessons, and no underlying purpose – the only purpose that it serves is to create stories that make for great propaganda. Since history is entirely moldable, it has no objective value – but it does make a wonderful tool. There is nothing wrong with rewriting history or with choosing the facts to fit one’s narrative, in order to push an agenda. Isn’t that what everyone else is doing? But in order to do this, the totalitarian must gain political power in the present, so that he can gain the levers of education. Once he is in control of the levers of education, he can present a propagandized view of the past. Such a view of the past will influence people to support the party, and hence will give them increased power in the future. Hence, totalitarians are desperate to get their hands on media, education, and any other instrument by which they can present their own version of ‘history.’ This is exactly the meaning of the famous quote from 1984: “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past” (oh, and remember – Big Brother is Watching!).

These are the six defining marks of totalitarianism that stand out to me from my studies. Lest I have not sufficiently startled you, forgive me for leaving you with this uncomfortably chilling quote from Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism:

“What is more disturbing to our peace of mind than the unconditional loyalty of members of totalitarian movements, and the popular support of totalitarian regimes, is the unquestionable attraction these movements exert on the elite, and not only on the mob elements in society. It would be rash indeed to discount, because of artistic vagaries or scholarly naivete, the terrifying roster of distinguished men whom totalitarianism can count among its sympathizers, fellow-travelers, and inscribed party members.”