1)
- Totalitarian movements are mass organizations of atomized, isolated individuals. (Chapter 10)
- It was recognized early and has frequently been asserted that in totalitarian countries propaganda and terror present two sides of the same coin (Chapter 11)
- Totalitarian propaganda raised ideological scientificality and its technique of making statements in the form of predictions to a height of efficiency of method and absurdity of content because, demagogically speaking, there is hardly a better way to avoid discussion than by releasing an argument from the control of the present and by saying that only the future can reveal its merits (Chapter 11)
- The most efficient fiction of Nazi propaganda was the story of a Jewish world conspiracy. (Chapter 11)
- The true goal of totalitarian propaganda is not persuasion but organization - the accumulation of power without the possession of the means of violence. (Chapter 11)
- The Leader's absolute monopoly of power and authority is most conspicuous in the relationship between him and his chief of police, who in a totalitarian country occupies the most powerful public position. (Chapter 12)
1) "Nothing is more characteristic of the totalitarian movements in general and of the quality of fame of their leaders in particular than the startling swiftness with which they are forgotten and the startling ease with which they can be replaced." (Chapter 10).
Here, Arendt notes the inherently flighty and temporary nature of totalitarian leaders and movements in general - often, a great source of their power is the cult of personality by which the ideology and charisma of leaders reel in their followers. This occurs to the point where the connection to this ideology is superfluous at best; people often do not want a real solution to a problem, but just someone to fix it for them. That way, when someone comes along with a particular way of thinking that they claim will get them out of their problem, they will adopt the ideology along with the comforting notion that someone has come along to fix that problem for them. Leaders will become extremely popular, as the public places their entire trust in them to make things better, no matter how it happens - people will displace their own beliefs to see that this happens.
However, when this totalitarian regime falls, and the leader was deposed, attempts to reinstate and continue the legacy of that previous leader are not necessarily met with success. For example, Arendt notes the attempts at continuing Stalin's regime after he was gone were not extremely well-met, and even Hitler is not even cited as playing a major role in the major policy decisions of neo-Nazi and neo-fascist groups. People are notoriously fickle and easily forgetful of their leaders, attaching themselves to personalities rather than ideologies - once the man goes, people are not as attached to the man's beliefs. This creates a sense of impermanence by which totalitarian regimes can be identified; so closely tied to the leader's personality is the regime itself that it is fairly difficult to continue on in a new form. Furthermore, the public is unaware of this flightiness, and move on to another figure just as soon as they have another problem that needs solving, and an energetic figure who promises to solve it.
2) "Wherever totalitarianism possesses absolute control, it replaces propaganda with indoctrination and uses violence not so much to frighten people (this is done only in the initial stages when political opposition still exists) as to realize constantly its ideological doctrines and its practical lies." (Chapter 11)
In this quote, Arendt seeks to note the dangers of a totalitarian state that accomplishes its goal of seizing control over an entire population. The use of communication methods typical of totalitarianism - namely propaganda and terror - are examined and shown to be much different in the establishing stages of the regime than after it has already been long set up. The use of lies and deceit to lull the people into a false sense of security is very telling of the nature of totalitarianism and its propaganda efforts.
There is a very fine line in the messages that are being sent by totalitarian states depending on how much of a hold they have on their people. When the masses are introduced to a totalitarian state, they are done so by propaganda - extreme declarations of the righteousness and moral fortitude of the given state, and the demonization of the Other or of rival states and regimes. To that end, people are swayed by the messages of improvement and betterment for themselves (and destitution for others) that this propaganda presents. However, after everyone has been convinced, and they must crack down on dissenters, indoctrination and terror are used to convey the message.
The use of violence in a totalitarian state is only used at first to put people in a state of helpless complacency; after that, once the state is established, it is used to further the ideological truths of the regime. When a state declares that all must work in the service to the state, it will not provide welfare to those who are not doing so. Often, it will create problems (e.g. unemployment) to solve, with the propaganda machine touting the successful eradication of something that was not there in the first place. This is then used to gain the favor of citizens, who are told that the regime is good for them.
3) "Practically speaking, the paradox of totalitarianism in power is that the possession of all instruments of governmental power and violence in one country is not an unmixed blessing for a totalitarian movement." (Chapter 12)
In this quote, Arendt notes that, even in spite of the government's total control of every aspect of the state, there are still potential pitfalls and drawbacks that can occur. Because propaganda and totalitarianism eschews facts entirely for the sake of a pure narrative that only serves the nearly cartoonish desires and priorities of a totalitarian state, it is even more concerned with maintaining this narrative. When having to fight against cold hard facts that the public might easily discern, a totalitarian state must work overtime to establish their narrative. Totalitarian regimes often replace reality with fiction, which is a much more difficult ordeal to undertake than simply adjusting policy to facts to create an ideal.
With the thick curtain of misinformation in place, any grain of true information that contradicts that threatens to undermine the whole regime, as it firmly establishes that the regime lies. The danger from this comes from the fact that every other nation on the planet is giving information that contradicts the strict narrative put in place by the regime - unless the regime itself takes over the planet and has total control of all media and information on Earth, this danger will always be present. When a regime takes power, it inherently seeks for an overall goal, then, of world domination - it is the only way to maintain the propaganda narrative. History is written by the victors, and so victory must inevitably become the only defense of a totalitarian state to maintain its version of history.
Therefore, while the thought of a totalitarian regime as a vehicle for revisionist history is nice, it simply is not all that feasible. There is the inherent and temporary command of the nation's attention and suspension of disbelief, but there are simply too many factors (and too many sources of outside information) to maintain it for long, no matter how many resources are at one's disposal.
4) "Instead of saying that totalitarian government is unprecedented, we could also say that it has exploded the very alternative on which all definitions of the essence of governments have been based in political philosophy, that is the alternative between lawful and lawless government, between arbitrary and legitimate power." (Chapter 13)
In this quote, Arendt describes the relationship between totalitarianism and legitimacy, which is complex and strange. While Arendt disagrees that there is no precedent for a totalitarian government, she gives the alternative by saying we could "also" say it, noting that there is still some truth to the former statement. Essentially, Arendt states that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of real and imagined power - totalitarianism falls within a spectrum of which those are the two extremes. By eschewing everything positive about law and even defying its own principles that helped to establish it at times, a totalitarian state both obeys and disobeys the law.
The kind of government that totalitarian rule provides us with is something that is difficult to define; it does not answer the call of its people, but the people respond to its absolute rule often with positivity anyway. Sometimes, it seems as though, while people do not actively seek out the totalitarian state, they allow it to flourish despite potentially knowing it will upset their established order.
Arendt argues that totalitarian regimes obey the laws of history and nature, which are often quite different from moral and ethical laws set up by man. To that end, regimes often just get rid of positive law, while setting up their own law that has precedent in the needs and wants of man - namely, toward power of the elite and the establishment of a very top-heavy governmental system. Divine law, as it is defined by totalitarian leaders, becomes the new dominant philosophy, which can change in a heartbeat. Its inability (or unwillingness) to stick to any concrete rules and create new senses of legality help to define its nature as something wholly willed by individual narratives, and not a sense of righteousness or morality in a strict sense.
References
Arendt, H. (1958). The origins of totalitarianism. Meridian Books.
