LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

says Vidojevic, social changes may flow in the opposite direction, from pre-democracy to neo-totalitarianism with the same intermediary – an authoritarian rule. All totalitarian periods are preceded by a Bonapartist or authoritarian rule. This is the road to unlimited one-person rule, an essential component of neo-totalitarianism.

      Same as the former socialist totalitarianism, its new post-socialist model can’t allow democratic pluralism, neither political nor ideological. But according to Vidojevic, “weak and strictly controlled ideological and political pluralism is needed to camouflage the new totalitarianism’s true colors.”

      Concluding the analysis of trends in neo-totalitarianism in a post-socialist country the Serbian scholar highlights the most essential characteristics of the phenomenon:

      The essence of the totalitarian rule is disguised with pseudo-democratic institutions

      – Factually one-party political monopoly under a fictitious multi-party system.

      – Uncontrolled power of the leader, his irremovability and unaccountability, the new cult of personality.

      – The monopoly on the main mass media and informal censorship of information about real state of affairs in the country and society.

      – Forcible total privatization, larcenous appropriation, subordination of the economy under mafia protection racket, arbitrary preservation of state property and forcible retention of the main sectors of the economy in the interests of the ruling class.

      – Intimidation of political opponents, political assassinations, the elimination (including physical) those who represent a threat to the interests of the government and its related entities of sometimes illegitimate nature, or attempt to resist the extreme and aggressive religious fanaticism.

      – Legal, economic defenselessness and insecurity of the masses, their lack of confidence, as the first person of the state keeps distance from them.

      Once again, I must remind, this was articulated back in 1997. It is characteristic for totalitarianism, says the book, that it is ingrown and accepted by all of the major social groups, from top to bottom of the social pyramid. Indoctrination of the masses with totalitarian mentality, their consolidation into one aggressive “We” can happen under condition of abundance of wealth and relative prosperity of the greater society. According to Vidojevic, depersonalization and purposelessness of life, lack of interest in anything except material well-being, fatigue from the race for all kinds of earthly goods, the aggressive spirit, engrained in the society, all this makes it objectively possible to establish postindustrial totalitarianism.

      What the classical and post-modern totalitarianism have in common is the enslavement of the mind that in the latter continues to deepen due to the unprecedented development of the media.

      Vidojevic maintains that the Neo-totalitarianism cannot affirm itself under the banner of a new Auschwitz or the Gulag. However, it can act under the sign of persecution of every kind of otherness and non-conformism, destroying other people’s freedom with violent imposition of its own values.

      Extremist movements, right- or left-wing, organized into appropriate movements and parties, constitute the first step towards totalitarianism. According to Vidojevic, if one of the prerequisites of post-socialist totalitarianism is the inherited mentality of loyal obedient subjects, accustomed to strict order and hierarchy in society and state, the post-modern totalitarianism in developed capitalist societies, among other factors, stems from the mentality of a happy idiot or a robot.

      It is easy to notice that the latter goes back to the tradition of describing a totalitarian society, associated with the names of Aldous Huxley13 and Neil Postman, not George Orwell. The brave new world where people amuse themselves to death, provides much greater opportunities for control over them than watchful screens and the ministries of love or truth. This is where we can see the contact zone between democratic and potentially totalitarian countries.

      The man of the crowd on the throne

      Nearly twenty years after the appearance of Vidojevic’s book we may talk about overcoming neo-totalitarianism in two different ways.

      Now it is obvious that the so-called color-coded revolutions (the first one was in Serbia) were a continuation of the velvet revolutions that ended the totalitarian occupation, the tank-enforced socialism. Color revolutions were aimed to overthrow the newly established totalitarianism in post-soviet states.

      At the turn of the century the major differences in the development of Eastern Europe and Russia became apparent. Step by step Russia has been moving back to a totalitarian mode, reverting to the patterns of classic totalitarianism. The development of civil societies in Georgia and Ukraine has been naturally oriented to the European political culture, which was becoming increasingly alien to Russia. The development of civil societies in Georgia and Ukraine has been naturally oriented to the European political culture, from which Russia was becoming increasingly alienated. Russia declined the historic chance to build the union of democracies in Eastern Europe and wider in Eurasia, which would become one of the centers of the Judeo-Christian civilization. The European choice of the neighbors came to be regarded as a threat not only to the entrenched ruling elite, but also to the Russian identity, the totalitarian Russian civilization, which positions itself as anti-civilization with no positive values and achievements.

      This is the second essential feature of totalitarianism. The first, as already mentioned, is its atavistic character – this term is applicable only to countries where a disruption of democratic development occurred along with their secession from the Judeo-Christian civilization. Any totalitarian value is a reversed value, regardless of its ideological design. This is one of the principal differences between totalitarianism and the traditional societies with their self-sufficiency and Latin American dictatorships integrated in the Western world. Antiglobalism and leftist movements of the last decades have significantly strengthened the totalitarian tendencies on this continent, made openly left-wing Venezuela an ally of Russia, where the right-wing ideas – monarchism, clericalism, chauvinism are proclaimed.

      The demonization and humiliation of Putin and those around him is a useless and pointless undertaking. People, who came to power in the last years of the last century, did not pursue some insane goals. Vladimir Putin was the homunculus grown in a test-tube of political technology. Nobody wanted him to become a totalitarian leader, but the very selection criteria were totalitarian: it seemed the perfect choice was a man without qualities. This was fully consistent with the spirit and content of the political technologies of that time, totalitarian in its core, since for the Russian political strategists a human being and society have always been superfluous, unnecessary elements.

      The rulers of Russia did not set themselves a totalitarian overarching goal. But they did not put other goals either. All they need is their lifelong irremovability in power and their convertibility. The human dimension of politics, state activity, public service does not exist for them. They do not even deny morality, they do not talk about the chimera of conscience – they just argue and act outside of these categories, considering them suitable only for political demagogy.

      In October 2004, I described the emerging regime as follows:

      “It is wrong to accuse the power in the absence of ideology. Its ideology is simple, has been known since the Soviet era and is reduced to a simple formula: what I protect is what I have. This simplicity ensures high ratings. The public does not want to grow up and this formula is the most germane to the infantilism, so typical for the mentality of Soviet secret police and all other kind of watchmen. Everything is all right with the goal setting and the sense of purpose: the main thing is to secure a comfortable old age with the assets they are in charge of protecting. But the protected object, besides oil, gas, alcohol and still sellable weapons, lives a life controlled by the most incomprehensible manner. And even with one hundred percent approval rating no caretaker, no

Скачать книгу