March 5, 2024

The main source of this series of articles is Bob Avakian's book Democracy: Can't We Do Better Than That? and his other works on democracy/dictatorship. 

One of the most widely used and popular concepts on Iran's political scene today is “totalism” or “totalitarianism,” a theory developed by Hannah Arendt. This concept is widely used by opposition forces on the Right and the Left, though with different intent and understanding, to describe the Islamic Republic of Iran [IRI]. The most well-intentioned often assume that totalitarianism is an extreme form of tyranny and despotism, where the state is about controlling society down to the most personal aspects of an individual’s life. But some deliberately use this ideological weapon to misrepresent the only radical solution that has emerged outside the framework of the imperialist-capitalist system (i.e. communist revolution). They define the only, and binary, alternatives as “democracy” (including “good” bourgeois autocracies) vs. totalitarianism when the real choice is between two different kinds of future. [It is either] to perpetuate this very same system of capitalist oppression and exploitation, with all the horrors it visits on the majority of the world's people, and today—through destruction of the environment and nuclear war [threatening] life on planet Earth and all of humanity—vs. getting rid of this system and establishing a fundamentally different type of state (class democracy/dictatorship) in order to move towards a world that has no private ownership of the means of production, no class or social distinctions, and with no [need for the] state.

Therefore, it is important to take a closer look at the concept or theory of totalitarianism, although it is difficult to call it a theory due to its lack of logic and internal coherence, in order to understand not only how the term is used, its analysis of the problem that the IRI represents, and what it says must be done to solve that problem. Because if the problem is that the IRI is totalitarian, [then] the solution would be to create the “normal democracy” that a wide spectrum of the opposition goes on and on about. But if our analysis of the nature of the IRI is consistent with reality, we will recognize that it is not only a theocratic fascist state, but also that it is completely interwoven with a capitalist infrastructure [that is] dependent on the world imperialist capitalist system. Therefore, the solution can be nothing less than overthrowing the IRI, with the goal of establishing a socialist state and society. So let's take a look at what totalitarianism is and why our problem with the IRI’s regime is not something called totalitarianism.

Any concept or theory, including totalitarianism, cannot be understood without taking into consideration the historical and global social context from which it emerged. So, we must get clear on these two points: 1) the [historical] period in which this theory was developed, and 2) that this theory is a distortion of reality that serves the interests of a specific class and its specific political goals. Further, there never has been a state that could be explained by “totalitarianism.” All examples of states alleged to be totalitarian were, in reality, either one of the various types of imperialist-capitalist regimes—fascist or autocratic with a socialist mask—or genuine socialist states (the Soviet Union 1917-1956 and China 1949-1976).

Here is how [revolutionary leader] Bob Avakian describes the actual content and political role of the theory of totalitarianism:

This theory was developed in the context of World War 2, including the events of the late 1930s leading up to it and above all the situation that arose in its aftermath. It was not widely promoted (or the Soviet Union was not targeted in the same way as it is now) during the period 1941-45, when the [socialist] Soviet Union was allied with the “Western democracies” against the fascist Axis (that is German, Italian, and Japanese imperialism and their allies). It was after the war that this theory was fully fertilized and blossomed forth. For the Soviet Union—and what was then a large and potentially very powerful socialist camp under its leadership—had emerged as the direct antagonist to imperialism in the West. (This became all the more the case, and this socialist camp was seen as all the more dangerous, after the victory of the Chinese Revolution in 1949.)¹

Subsequently, in the 1980s when the Soviet social-imperialist bloc was the serious rival of the Western imperialists, the concept (or accusation) of totalitarianism was one of the main ideological weapons in the Western imperialist arsenal that they deployed in the conflict. And still, whenever [inter-imperialist] conflict escalates—for example, in the war between Russia and NATO in Ukraine—they justify their actions with this ideological weapon [of totalitarianism].

Totalitarianism presents itself as a new “yardstick” that goes beyond the distinction of Left and Right. Indeed, Arendt is not unique in [her refusal] to recognize these fundamental distinctions. She relies on some superficial similarities between Hitler's Germany and the Soviet Union under Stalin's leadership to invent a “new theory of the state.” According to Arendt, there is a new kind of state, the “totalitarian state,” which is not only different from democracy, but even different from the openly dictatorial states (reactionaries, autocrats, etc.) that have existed up ’til now. In this new theory, the state is unmoored from classes, from the specific social division that the state is an extension of, and from the production relations that the state must ultimately serve and reproduce. 

The totalitarian “yardstick” is used to propagate the very enormous lie that fascist and communist governments are the same (!) and simultaneously serves as an apology for the many not-so-democratic “free world” regimes in the U.S. imperialist camp that are not considered to be totalitarian! For example, Saudi Arabia's [Mohammed] bin Salman is never considered totalitarian, even though he ordered the dismemberment of [Jamal] Khashoggi, a critic and journalist! Nor is Israel! (Although Arendt was against certain crimes the Israeli government committed, neither she nor other anti-totalitarians ever called Israel totalitarian.) And of course, this yardstick serves to prettify and distract attention from the criminal nature of Western imperialist democracies. Regardless of how much they are intertwined with racism, patriarchy, warmongering and environmental destruction, when confronted with the specter of communism we must bow down to them! 

The same concept of the state, one that completely separates the political superstructure from the economic infrastructure, is used by Iranian intellectuals in their analysis of the IRI to reduce it to merely a totalitarian regime, without bothering to explain the differences between this regime and other reactionary and despotic regimes. According to U.S. government documents, apparently ever since the IRI signed a twenty-five-year agreement with China, they have considered it to be totalitarian.² Before that, dating back to 1979 and even before, they were treated as little more than regional reactionary Islamists—and occasionally as U.S. allies in the fight against the threat of communism. 

Ultimately, this yardstick of totalitarianism is not only inaccurate but also lacks the ability to measure the fundamental attribute of the state: that it is a dictatorship of one class over other classes. The concept of “totalitarianism” is nothing more than a political tool for drawing a line of demarcation between the camps of the friends and enemies of the U.S.

But, apart from the specific political aims of totalitarianism which many are unaware of, why is this concept actually out of sync with reality and therefore unscientific?

[C]entral to the whole outlook and methodology of the antitotalitarian theorists is the recasting and reinterpretation of events according to the a priori notions of their theory. This is a Procrustean outlook and methodology: anything which does not fit the theory, and any event of world history which does not conform to and confirm its assumptions, is bent and mutilated to make it fit. These theorists are every bit as fanatical about this as the totalitarians portrayed in their writings.³

Arendt, for example, asks why the masses of people in Germany, and even a section of the intelligentsia, supported Hitler (and a similar question is posed about the support given to [Iran’s Ayatollah Ali] Khomeini in 1978 by sections of the masses and by the intellectuals). Instead of examining the real dynamics of the rise of fascism from within the capitalist system—that it was grounded in the defeat of Germany in World War I, the changed conditions of people in a defeated imperialist country and its many political and social dimensions, including the limitations of other forces on the scene—Arendt blames the masses (“the alliance of the mob with the elite”) and flying in the face of all facts to the contrary, she declares the end of imperialism!

There are a lot of similarities between this and the blame-game targeting proponents of [Iran’s revolution in] 1979. There is a lot of complexity to the effect of several decades of [Shah Mohammed Reza] Pahlavi’s pro-Western rule on the life of the Iranian people, the global situation, domestic repression, and ultimately on the functioning of the imperialist capitalist system whose internal dynamics gave rise to reactionary alternatives like Islamic fundamentalism. It is far easier to attribute all of it to the stupidity of the masses and intellectuals, and to Khomeini being totalitarian!

Arendt writes: 

[W]e are indeed at the end of the bourgeois era of profit and power, as well as at the end of imperialism and expansion. The aggressiveness of totalitarianism springs not from lust for power, and if it feverishly seeks to expand, it does so neither for expansion’s sake nor for profit, but only for ideological reasons: to make the world consistent, to prove that its respective supersense has been right.⁴

The basis of this theory is precisely that totalitarianism has its own unique dynamics and does not function according to the dynamics of imperialism! So, too bad about the facts of World War II, which show that it was fought among imperialist countries over the re-division of the world, especially for advantage over strategic regions. Further, the ruling capitalist class always uses ideology to govern and justify its actions, and to expand its spheres of influence. U.S. imperialism epitomizes this practice, carrying out wars and military interventions around the world in the name of “exporting democracy.” If this is not for expansion and profit, if imperialism has ended, why don’t Arendt and others in her school of thought conclude that the U.S. is a totalitarian state because of such lust for power? 

But some people just cannot see that claims about totalitarianism are completely contrary to reality, that in every case this theory is applied in a way that is thoroughly contradictory! For example, Mehdi Khalaji says that imperialism has never existed in Iran (yet at this very moment, the IRI exists within the imperialist system—not itself an imperialist country but is dependent on the capitalist system of imperialism). In Khalaji’s opinion, a Shiite state is not necessarily a totalitarian one! From this we should conclude that the only state that necessarily and certainly is totalitarian—and therefore must be avoided—is a socialist state.

In addition to the non-scientific methodology, another anti-scientific aspect of totalitarianism is its false theory that human nature is unchangeable. Arendt goes so far as to call Darwin's theory of evolution invalid! Discounting the possibility of changing human thinking and social behavior is in fact to oppose the possibility of changing the world—a world full of exploitation, oppression of one human being by another, hostile relationships between people, and destructive wars—which leads to acceptance of all these horrors. According to Arendt and her cohort of Iranians, from Touraj Atabaki to Mehdi Khalaji and Bahareh Hedayat⁵, “the goal of totalitarian systems is to create a ‘new man’! But changing everything winds up destroying everything!” And, according to Arendt, not only is the totalitarian project of making “a new type of man” a bad thing, but for the thinking of humans to change as a result of change to external conditions will lead to an instability and inconsistency, which she sees as a conspicuous characteristic of the “totalitarian personality” or mentality!⁶

The reality is that the human species is very adaptable and [can change] as conditions—and above all social systems—change. People are able to make enormous changes in their outlook, beliefs, and even in their feelings... For those who have no interest in the status quo, this is very liberating. But for those like Arendt, the mere attempt at change is frightening. And this includes any kind of change, even to achieve equality of opportunity and education. Arendt wrote that, 

Nineteenth-century positivism and progressivism perverted this purpose of human equality when they set out to demonstrate what cannot be demonstrated, namely, that men are equal by nature and different only by history and circumstances, so that they can be equalized not by rights, but by circumstances and education.⁷

Bob Avakian replies: 

Here Arendt reveals both the bourgeois—and more specifically, bourgeois-democratic—essence of her outlook, and at the same time the reactionary essence of the bourgeois-democratic ideal in this era: the notion, and insistence, that on the one hand equality is the highest principle but that on the other hand human “equality is an equality of rights only."⁸

For antitotalitarians, it does not matter that for the IRI the “new type man” is steeped in religion, male supremacy/patriarchy, oppressive social hierarchies and exploitative economic relations — and that the transformed human being of the future socialist society hates all of this, and this change is part of dismantling those oppressive, exploitative social relations and the corresponding dark-ages ways of thinking. As Marx put it, circumstances are changed by men, meaning that s/he can change her/himself. For the antitotalitarians, all that matters is that the old human—the atomized individual that capitalism created a few hundred years ago by uprooting peasants from the land and destroying feudal collectives, a commodity owner (whose commodity is his labor power)—should be kept just as he is, with his highest contribution to society [in] a vote for a section of the ruling class. But let the same vote go to the fascist faction of the ruling class like Hitler, Trump or Erdogan, it sends the antitotalitarians into crisis, so they put the blame on the masses for misusing their “right to vote.” 

Paradoxically, according to some including Khalaji, what is key to combating totalitarianism and the “new-type man” is self-motivation and self-awareness! It is as if those who Arendt calls “self-contained and unique” are living in a vacuum, and can consciously choose their own social and production relations; as if they live in no particular political, ideological and economic-social system with no dominant class, no ruling ideology that influences society and gives direction to their spontaneity. According to this line of thought, all that is out there are isolated individuals. Whereas in their same ideal bourgeois-democratic countries, people from an early age are constantly and continually inundated with misinformation. Through their comprehensive educational system, the media, and by other means they lie to people about every important issue in current political events, world affairs, and world history. They systematically inculcate their own misleading and upside-down view of the world in the minds of the masses. And they accomplish this not through extreme and bizarre practices like those portrayed in 1984, George Orwell’s [fictional] totalitarian society, but through the “normal” and democratic functioning of the bourgeois-democratic society and state.

At times, the concept of totalitarianism is used so randomly that it would astonish Arendt herself, should she hear them. Reza Kazemzadeh, for example, believes that totalitarian governments are created to combat individuality and a private life. “In the last century,” he writes, “all totalitarian regimes were collectivist and group-oriented systems... from fascism and Nazism in Europe, to ‘people’s democracies’ in the communist Soviet Union and China. All of them were based on the principle of prioritizing collective interests over individual rights. Apparently, there is an organic connection between being group-oriented and totalitarianism, such that in the official ideology of these systems, an individual finds meaning and receives official recognition only within the framework of the group and in their assigned role within the collective."⁹

Elementary social history shows that the conflict between the individual and society is present in all types of society. But the problem is that this contradiction becomes antagonistic in class societies such as capitalism (no matter whether the capitalist class governs with fascism or with liberal democracy) because, in the existing social division of labor, the majority of society must serve the interests of the minority class that stands over and against them and their collective interests. And on the contrary, in socialist society, the individuality and individual talents of this majority flourish a million times more. But under capitalism, the majority of workers in society are treated like “nobodies” and often as merely “surplus [labor]”—not as full human beings with amazing talents, leaving us with only these “collective” and “individual” interests versus those “collective” and “individual” interests! 

On the subject of the totalitarianism of the IRI, Kazemzadeh writes, “Home and family are the only places in our society that are significantly resistant to an assortment of direct and continuous interferences by the government.” Yes, the family (!) despite the fact that, even within the framework of this capitalist system, families are often feudal hierarchies. The family household is one of the main vehicles for inculcating ruling class ideology and for controlling and suppressing a large share of society—especially women and their “individuality.” This has nothing to do with the "eye of big brother" and the totalitarianism of the IRI. Rather, it is part of how all states function in the imperialist capitalist system, where male-supremacy/patriarchal relations are rooted in the family. 

Extreme individualism of the Ayn Rand variety does not save a society from totalitarianism. Instead, it divides society into millions of hostile and competing cells, each of which sees the other as an obstacle to its own freedom and prosperity. Such an outlook is the basis for liberal democracy and for its justification of imperialist rivalries and wars. It is also the basis for fascist solutions of making war on the “other.”

And, it can only exist if we close our eyes to the common interests of the whole of Humanity which, objectively, has the ability to advance beyond this system of oppression and exploitation.