Versuch über den europäischen Totalitarismus Mit einem Seitenblick auf die SED-Herrschaft in der Honecker-Ära (English shop)

Preview

Table of Contents, Datei (35 KB)
Preface, Datei (52 KB)
Extract, Datei (59 KB)

- A summary of the contents -

The study of European totalitarianism presented here, with a side glance at SED rule in the Honecker era, claims to resolve the current substantive hollowing-out of and confusion surrounding the concept of totalitarianism, as well as to find a possible answer to the question of what totalitarianism is or could be. The aim of this work is to build on the classical concepts of the 1950s, which, owing to their narrowly defined concept of totalitarianism, remain compelling even today. In this context, attention is to be directed towards SED rule in the 1970s and 1980s in order to locate it appropriately in conceptual terms.

Chapter I of the work is introductory in character. Here the chequered history of the concept of totalitarianism is reconstructed in order to extract from it its achievements, deficits and perspectives. Analogously, it is discussed what totalitarianism is not. The focus of consideration is directed here both at the absolutist and at the dictatorial form of rule. In this context it is emphasised that the unrestricted power of a person or group of persons, terror against political opponents, as well as education and the shaping of consciousness in the sense of a new order, are already features of those forms of rule and therefore do not justify the use of the concept of totalitarianism. In a next step, the question is pursued of what had to be experienced, when, by whom and in what way, such that traditional concepts of the theory of rule were felt to be no longer sufficient to characterise adequately the regimes newly emerging at the beginning of the twentieth century. To this end, the beginnings of the totalitarianism debate in the 1920s and 1930s are mirrored against political realities. In doing so, it could be shown that until 1933, neither in Italy nor in National Socialist Germany and the Soviet Union did any changes take place that could not have been described by the concept of “sovereign dictatorship” (Carl Schmitt).

Chapter II is devoted to an approach to the phenomenon of totalitarianism. To this end, political development in the Soviet Union up into the 1930s is analysed against the background of the question of political changes that go beyond what can be subsumed under the concept of sovereign dictatorship and that justify the use of the concept of totalitarianism. In this context, the character of the murder of Sergei Kirov as a caesura is examined more closely. In this context, modernity and its consequences are to be addressed. Hatred of the bourgeoisie is emphasised here just as much as the modern European understanding of history and its consequences.

Chapter III deals with the attempt at a positive definition of totalitarianism. At the outset, the religious aspects of National Socialist and communist ideology indicated in the previous chapter are discussed. In a next step, both doctrines are examined against the background of gnostic thought and feeling. The focus is directed at the recipes for the redemption of the world. Of particular importance for the definition of the totalitarian is the consideration of the libertinistic guide to action of the Gnostics. It is demonstrated equally during the period of the “Great Terror” as well as in wartime and post-war Stalinism. The same applies to the “war of annihilation” initiated by the National Socialists and to the Holocaust. Out of this analysis, the essence of European totalitarianism becomes graspable. For the purpose of the most exact possible delimitation, the necessity of distinguishing between primary and secondary phenomena of totalitarianism is emphasised. Following on from this, the efforts towards a positive definition of European totalitarianism are presented within the framework of a primary phenomenon. It describes a principle of political action, developed out of an ideology elevated to the status of science, that is free of doubt. The political will arising from this is ethically and morally entirely unbounded and fixated exclusively on the goal of the final physical annihilation of whoever has been declared the enemy. This will is so strong that even the securing of one’s own rule, and thus the establishment of the desired order, is neglected in favour of this goal. This will, thus formulated in terms of its content, is designated, following Benito Mussolini, as the “totalitarian will”. Totalitarian rule is thus described as a subtype of sovereign dictatorship, not as an independent form of rule.

Chapter IV marks the temporal end of totalitarianism on the European continent. In accordance with the definition advanced in this work, totalitarian rule ends with the crushing of National Socialist rule and the death of Joseph Stalin. In addition, Linz’s concept of authoritarian regimes and the concept of post-totalitarianism are discussed. The latter in particular is examined as to its suitability for describing appropriately the really existing socialist rule of the 1970s and 1980s. Problems are identified and proposed solutions put forward.

Chapter V is concerned with capturing SED rule in the Honecker era conceptually. In this context, previous attempts are discussed and probed as to their advantages and disadvantages. In preparation for my own efforts, I have marked out the USSR as the point of reference from which meaningful considerations must proceed. Against the background of the insights from the previous chapter, Carl Schmitt’s concept of dictatorship could be delineated as a suitable framework for discussion. Owing to the SED’s claim to rule with the aim of establishing a communist order, the subtype of sovereign dictatorship is chosen as the analytical grid. In the course of the discussion of GDR history, the SED dictatorship presents itself, read in Schmittian terms, as “sovereign” at its core, yet with increasing restrictions. In distinction to the attempts at conceptualisation discussed at the outset, I have developed a new terminology with the “atrophic-sovereign dictatorship”, which in my view corresponds to the ambivalent character of SED rule. It constitutes a subtype of “sovereign dictatorship”.

Chapter VI marks the conclusion of this work. By way of rounding off, the questions previously dealt with are taken up once more and answered in summary form.