Display:
The term "inverted totalitarianism" as whatever Wolin wants it to mean, as an academic term, is fine.

But as a persuasive term it sinks immediately upon launch. 'Totalitarianism' by the general public is associated with (if they associate it with anything) Hitler and Stalin, and it just common-sensically doesn't feel that way here in the States. So, anybody have a better term that still captures what he's getting at and connects with the 'sorta totalitarian' way it feels to experience this hopeless and regressing political system?

fairleft

by fairleft (fairleftatyahoodotcom) on Sun Jan 31st, 2010 at 11:12:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Stealth Totalitarianism might be more thought provoking and more accurate. As I have commented here, the real genius of the system is that, when those who pull the strings attached to Congress and the Executive really screw up big time, they can always blame the electorate: "Well, you guys elected these fools." And so we did.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Feb 1st, 2010 at 01:04:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nice! I suppose there is no perfect alternative term, but yours is the best I've seen here.

Though I still think something like 'sold out system', 'post-democracy', or 'stage-managed society', some term that focuses on the fakeness of the democracy-related institutions, would resonate with most people's common sense without bringing in the extreme (You're saying we're just like Nazi Germany??) connotations of the word totalitarianism.

fairleft

by fairleft (fairleftatyahoodotcom) on Mon Feb 1st, 2010 at 12:38:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Stealth Totalitarianism may be the end to which we are proceeding, but, for the present, the de facto oligarchy of wealth and the popularly elected government that represents them and whose election they financed finds it convenient to allow a broad range of discussions, PROVIDED they remain confined to obscure blogs, etc. Were such discussions as we regularly see on ET to start occurring in the pages or even the on line blogs associated with the NY Times either a change in ownership or of editorial policy might be in order.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Feb 1st, 2010 at 01:28:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Wolin's Democracy Incorporated has been ignored by The New York Review of Books (with which he had published a book, and to which he had doubtless contributed), not to mention the NY Times. The New York Review is considerably to the left of the Times, so the fact that even it doesn't want to touch Wolin's recent ideas says how bad things have gotten in the US.

The only mainstream "general circulation" publication I've found to review the book is The Times Higher Education Supplement.

It of course makes members of the American elite uncomfortable to entertain the idea that the US is not a democracy, but a new, postmodern political form. But it makes European elites uncomfortable, too, largely, I think, because of NATO and all the American military bases that exist across Europe.

A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns

by Alexander on Mon Feb 1st, 2010 at 02:52:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What's wrong with "managed democracy", which Wolin uses and which you yourself mention? That's a natural enough term without the emotive effects of "totalitarianism".

Recalling the Soviet slogan

Communism = Soviet power + electrification of the whole country

one could say

Inverted totalitarianism = managed democracy + neoliberalism + American empire


A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns
by Alexander on Mon Feb 1st, 2010 at 03:09:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I personally like Oiligarchy.

I know it's not all about oil, but oil is a big part of it, and it's nice and concrete and something people can relate to. It's also already associated with big money and shady colonial wars.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Feb 1st, 2010 at 01:28:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not to discourage creativity, but I don't think that works so well. Even U.S. imperialism in the Middle East doesn't make sense, cost-benefit-wise, as wars for oil. I couldn't put one of the two, three, or four main sub-groups at the head of my one-word definition: the military-industrial complex and the finance/insurance/real estate complex seem to share governance very comfortably, and I didn't even mention the oil lobby there.

fairleft
by fairleft (fairleftatyahoodotcom) on Mon Feb 1st, 2010 at 10:43:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Slogans don't have to be accurate. They have to be catchy. Accurate is what you do once you have people's attention.

And the oil lobby is pernicious enough to be a worthwhile target, even though they aren't the whole (or even the biggest) story.

Besides, the oil lobby is entrenched enough and powerful enough that the process of taking them out will of necessity involve tearing down much of the same infrastructure the MIC and FIRE sectors use to buy politicians.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Feb 1st, 2010 at 11:03:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I guess I didn't think "war for oil" worked very well as an anti-Iraq war slogan. Right-wing radio, to its vast audience, easily dismissed it, by pointing out (for instance) that the pre-war Iraq oil embargo actually was allowing oil companies to charge super high prices for oil, so why would they want a war that would end that great deal for them?

But, hey, I don't have a solution, a really good alternative name for 'inverted totalitarianism' either.

fairleft

by fairleft (fairleftatyahoodotcom) on Mon Feb 1st, 2010 at 12:24:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Right-wing radio, to its vast audience, easily dismissed it, by pointing out (for instance) that the pre-war Iraq oil embargo actually was allowing oil companies to charge super high prices for oil, so why would they want a war that would end that great deal for them?

That was a cop-out argument. The simplicist level of the 'war for oil' argument is indeed faulty to consider short-term corporate interests, but serious arguments focused on imperial interests pursued by neocon strategists: control over reserves in a post-Peak-Oil environment. Which was more or less explicit in the pre-war arguments by Cheney or Baker.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Mon Feb 1st, 2010 at 02:27:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
'Imperial war' was a pretty good way to describe the Iraq war, from the left. It fronts empire, which is completely on target and leads to the right dangerous thoughts. It doesn't leave out oil, but doesn't assert the war was for the narrow interests of the oil industry.

fairleft
by fairleft (fairleftatyahoodotcom) on Mon Feb 1st, 2010 at 04:03:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree that inverted totalitarianism as an academic term is good: it solves Horkheimer and Adorno's problem of how to relate America to Nazi Germany: America is Nazi Germany turned upside down.

Another key term for Wolin is managed democracy. Perhaps that term would be more digestible by the masses.

It should be kept in mind, by the way, that why Wolin considers America to be totalitarian is that the economic dominates everything else: thus the implicit idea is that neoliberalism is in essence totalitarian. I think that's a very important insight, something completely beyond the intellectual reach of a Hayek or a Krugman.

A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns

by Alexander on Mon Feb 1st, 2010 at 12:19:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I kind of like post-democracy more than managed democracy. Just because the system's 'religion' -- neo-liberalism -- is the ideology of ending democratic management of the economic sphere (well, of everything, actually). In one sense of the meaning of 'managed democracy', I'd much rather have that than a market-fundamentalist 'democracy'.

And I kind of like the way 'post-democracy' implies that what is emerging still has democratic forms and procedures but that they're used for purposes that 'move past' democracy to something new. But, my fave is not very specific on what that new something is, and how evil it is, which is a flaw.

fairleft

by fairleft (fairleftatyahoodotcom) on Mon Feb 1st, 2010 at 04:14:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series