極權主義
维基百科，自由的百科全书
極權主義，或譯全能主義，簡稱極權，是一項政治學用語，通常用於比較政治學（en:comparative politics），指的是一些現代政權主張國家應該掌控公眾與私人的每一方面的一種主義，通常用來描述第二次世界大戰期間的法西斯主義、納粹主義、史達林主義，或是其他類似的官僚资本主义在民国建国后到上世纪80年代在中国实行党国教育中国国民党以及中国古代的封建资本主义中央集权等的政治思想。
一般來說，極權主義包括以下四點：
- 國家永遠第一
- 一黨專政
- 操縱人民生活
- 積極對外擴張
影響力最大的幾位極權主義學者，例如卡爾·波普爾、漢娜·阿倫特、卡爾·J·弗里德里希（en:Carl Joachim Friedrich）、茲比格涅夫·布熱津斯基與胡安·林茲（en:Juan Linz）對極權主義的定義有些許不同。共同的認知是，極權主義動員全民支持政府與唯一的政治或宗教意識形態，排除與國家目標相左的工會、教會與政黨等異己。極權國家通常以一黨執政、秘密警察、透過政府控制的大眾媒體進行宣傳、個人崇拜、對言論自由的限制、大眾監控、以及国家恐怖主义等手段維持權力。
通常这些极权主义的推广者并不直接自称是要控制民权，而是以“解决社会矛盾”的说法如日本所谓的“共荣”或苏联所谓的“共产”，来“解决”资本主义社会性问题并骗取大众的信任，通常这些人认为经济和政治都应该具有计划性，而计划组织者应该是他们当中的某个人或者他们的政党，普通民众必须为他们的控制者，反对者为“反动”直接迫害镇压，并使用暴力手段强制推广他们所谓的“积极自由”。
Critics of the concept contend that the term lacks explanatory power. They argue that governments which may be classified as totalitarian often lack characteristics said to be associated with the term. They may not be as monolithic as they appear from the outside, if they incorporate several groups, such as the army, political leaders, industrialists, which compete for power and influence. In this sense, these regimes may exhibit pluralism through the involvement of several groups in the political process.
目录 |
[编辑] 用法
此一詞由喬瓦尼·詹蒂萊（en:Giovanni Gentile）發明，從貝尼托·墨索里尼所統治的法西斯義大利開始流行。詹蒂萊為墨索里尼撰寫的《法西斯的教條》（en:Doctrine of Fascism）之中，使用了「中央集權至上論」（en:statolatry）與「極權主義」這兩個詞彙。根據這兩人對集權主義的描述，此一詞的原始意義是，政府的主要意識形態主導，或起碼影響著，大多數人民的社會。他們宣稱，基於廣播與印刷媒體的發展，大部分現代國家會因為政府使用大眾媒體宣導自己的意識形態而成為上述的極權國家。
雖然此一詞的本義是指「掌握一切的全能政府」，許多類似的政權與統治方式也被貼上了這個標籤。卡爾·波普爾在《開放社會及其敵人》（en:The Open Society and Its Enemies）與《歷史決定論的貧困》（The Poverty of Historicism）兩本書中，對極權主義做出批評：他把「開放社會」（自由民主）與極權主義作為相對詞而討論，舉證說明後者 is grounded in the belief that history moves toward an immutable future, in accord with knowable laws.
During the Cold War period, the term gained renewed currency, especially following the publication of Hannah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951). Hannah Arendt argued that while Italian fascism constituted a classical case of dictatorship, nazism and stalinism fundamentally differed from such forms of tyranny, in that the single-party state was completely subjected to the party, either a representant of the nation (conceived by Nazism as a Volksgemeinschaft - a Nazi neologism for "National community" -, which could only be achieved by gaining control of all aspects of cultural and social life - Gleichschaltung) or of the proletariat. To the contrary, according to Arendt's controversial thesis, Mussolini's fascism still respected the authority of the state on the party. Arendt also underlined the role of pan-germanism and pan-slavism in both Nazism and Stalinism, which she described as "continental imperialisms" whom connected themselves to the racist discourse born during the New Imperialism period. Hannah Arendt's thesis on the totalitarian identity between nazism and stalinism has inspired generation of thinkers, and has been also widely contested. It has been argued that fascism shared more traits with nazism, including a common ideology, which set these two regimes apart from communist regimes such as the USSR.
[编辑] Cold War-era research
The political scientists Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski were primarily responsible for expanding the usage of the term in university social science and professional research, reformulating it as a paradigm for the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin as well as fascist regimes. For Friedrich and Brzezinski, the defining elements were intended to be taken as a mutually supportive organic entity comprised of the following: an elaborating guiding ideology; a single mass party, typically led by a dictator; a system of terror; a monopoly of the means of communication and physical force; and central direction and control of the economy through state planning. Such regimes had initial origins in the chaos that followed in the wake of the World War I, at which point the sophistication of modern weapons and communications enabled totalitarian movements to consolidate power in Italy, Germany, and Russia.
[编辑] Criticism and recent work with the concept
The concept of totalitarianism was at its outset controversial, and has been accused of being more of an ideological instrument than a descriptive tool. In the context of the Cold War, the identification between stalinism and nazism was obviously aimed against the Soviet Bloc, and has been therefore accused of being mainly used for anti-communism purposes. The first criticisms thus arose in the socialist movement. Hence, trotskyism called the Soviet Union a "degenerated workers' state", while Guy Debord would argue in the Society of the Spectacle (published in 1967, a year before May 1968 and the Prague Spring) that Western liberal democracies constituted a form of "soft spectacle" while the Soviet Bloc represented a "condensed form of the spectacle". Apart of criticism from the socialist movement, political scientists later argued that the "totalitarianism" concept didn't cover the real functioning of the Soviet Union. Furthermore, beside the question of when did stalinism end, this concept didn't account for the dissolution of the USSR in the 1990s.
The edition of The Black Book of Communism (1997), under Stéphane Courtois' direction, lit up again the controversy concerning stalinism and nazism alleged identification under the concept of totalitarianism. Besides, François Furet's earlier thesis about Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR being "totalitarian twins" was exposed to various criticisms. In The Nation, Daniel Singer, for instance, acknowledged the "totalitarian nature" of Stalin's Russia while finding "the thesis of "totalitarian twins" both wrong and unproductive. [1]. Others authors, among whom historian Eric Hobsbawm, reacted to Furet's continued identification in the 1990s of both regimes, as a sure sign of anti-communism. Indeed, the political context of the creation of this concept — the very beginning of the Cold War — would tend to accredit such a thesis. However, other authors have argued that despite this essential ideological differences and thus explicit goals shared by the rival ideologies (namely, nazism and communism, which is herein identified with stalinism despite the existence of other models), their functional working and the use of concentration camps in both Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR proved their essential similarity.
However, this technical similarity between both regimes itself as been contested. In the social sciences, the approach of Friedrich and Brzezinski came under criticism from scholars who argued that the Soviet system, both as a political and a social entity, was in fact better understood in terms of interest groups, competing elites, or even in class terms (using the concept of the nomenklatura as a vehicle for a new ruling class). These critics pointed to evidence of popular support for the regime and widespread dispersion of power, at least in the implementation of policy, among sectoral and regional authorities. For some followers of this 'pluralist' approach, this was evidence of the ability of the regime to adapt to include new demands. However, proponents of the totalitarian model claimed that the failure of the system to survive showed not only its inability to adapt but the mere formality of supposed popular participation. Its proponents do not agree on when the Soviet Union ceased to be describable as totalitarian.
The notion of "post-totalitarianism" was put forward by political scientist Juan Linz. For many commentators, such as Linz and Alfred Stepan, the Soviet Union entered a new phase after the abandonment of mass terror on Stalin's death. Discussion of "post-totalitarianism" featured prominently in debates about the reformability and durability of the Soviet system in comparative politics.
As the Soviet system disintegrated in the late 1980s and early 1990s, opponents of the concept claimed that the transformation of the Soviet Union under Mikhail Gorbachev, and later the total and sudden collapse of the Soviet Union, demonstrated that the totalitarian model had little explanatory value for researchers. Several decades earlier, for example, Bertram Wolfe in 1957 claimed that the Soviet Union faced no challenge or change possible from society at large. He called it a "solid and durable political system dominating a society that has been totally fragmented or atomized," one which will remain "barring explosion from within or battering down from without." Many classic theories of totalitarianism discounted the possibility of such change; however, later theorists not only acknowledged the possibility but in fact encouraged and welcomed it. Any suggestions of the indefinite stability of states labeled totalitarian among proponents of the term were largely discredited when the Soviet Union fell by the wayside.
In State of Exception - Homo Sacer (2003), philosopher Giorgio Agamben argued that the state of exception enforced during the Third Reich (beginning with the Reichstag Fire Decree which suspended — instead of repealing — the Weimar Constitution) has now become "general" and "permanent". In a sense, Agamben questions not only the legitimity of the totalitarianism concept, but the legitimity of a political typology itself. Instead, he claims, on Foucault's steps, that we have passed from the "territorial state" to the "population state", with the instauration of biopolitics as dominant governmental technology [2]. The extension of internment camps to various categories of the population, including refugees and illegal aliens, is considered by Agamben a crucial sign of the generalization of the state of exception.
[编辑] Political usage
While the term fell into disuse during the 1970s among many Soviet specialists, other commentators found the typology not only useful for the purposes of classification but for guiding official policy. In her 1978 essay for Commentary, "Dictatorships and Double Standards" (later expanded upon), Jeane Kirkpatrick argued that a number of foreign policy implications can be drawn by distinguishing "totalitarian" regimes from "authoritarian" ones. According to Kirkpatrick, authoritarian regimes are primarily interested in their own survival, and as such have allowed for varying degrees of autonomy regarding elements of civil society, religious institutions, court, and the press. On the other hand, under totalitarianism, no individual or institution is autonomous from the state's all-encompassing ideology. Therefore, U.S. policy should distinguish between the two and even grant support, if temporary, to authoritarian governments in order to combat totalitarian movements and promote U.S. interests. Kirkpatrick's influence, particularly as foreign policy adviser and United Nations ambassador, was essential to the formation of the Reagan administration's foreign policy and her ideas came to be known as the "Kirkpatrick Doctrine."
[编辑] 參考
- Giorgio Agamben, State of Exception - Homo Sacer (2003)
- Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1958, new ed. 1966)
- C. J. Friedrich and Z. K. Brzezinski, Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (2d ed. 1967)
- Jeane Kirkpatrick, Dictatorships and Double Standards: Rationalism and reason in politics (1982)
- Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan, Problems of Democratic Consolidation (1996)
- J. L. Talmon, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, (1952)
- Carl Schmitt, Die Diktatur (1928)
[编辑] 參見
Template:Ideology-small
- C殖民主義
[编辑] 外部連結
http://www.rfa.org/cantonese/zhuanti/gongyunshihua/2005/03/28/communism/?simple=1
