VRG: The Origins of Totalitarianism Ep.#12, Chapter 10: "A Classless Society" 

Sum: Totalitarian movements are "mass organizations of atomized, isolated individuals." Ch. 10 focuses on the idea of the "masses;" people with no real connections or sense of purpose. Ch. 11= on concept of "movements" and in partic. totalit. mvments. ch. 12 will deal with organizations. So this talk focuses on 10, i.e. the masses, groups comprised of lonely, disaffected, isolated individuals that will be susceptible to totalitarian movements. The masses include both members of the elite and the "mob" and thus it is not a class, but a classless, amorphous mass open to being manipulated and played by totalit. movements. The Totalit. leader has what these masses lack: great sense of being unshakeably right no matter how much bullshit and sham s/he spews out. Desperation of the lonely crowd makes them vulnerable to crackpots who speak as infallible strongmen (and usually it's been men.) Arendt thinks there is generally a psuedo-scientific ideology, but I'm not sure that's even nec. Main idea is masses lack convictions and the leader has fanatical confidence in their opinions as truths. Masses tend to be apolitical, don't vote often, and are lost. Every now and then they can be mobilized and when it happens it's dangerous. They're not motivated not by quest for gain, but selflessness in the service of a "Cause" -- something bigger than their lonely isolated selves. A bit like a cult or very socially demanding but cohesive religious movement (e.g. Unifcation church)-- sometning they'll live for and die for if it comes to that. Stalin recognized that to have absolute and total rule he had to break the cohesion of various social groups (ethnic groups, religious groups, class groups, peasants, interest groups etc.). He'd have to level all to the status of a mass of atomized individuals in order to impose totalitarianism. (see 319-20) Social and cultural organizations had to be destroyed, so that people now desperate and isolated would thus be prepared to give total loyalty to the leader. How did the elite become part of this mass? How did Heidegger get seduced by a totalitarian movement along with "cultured" elements like scientists, intellectuals, etc. They had criticized liberalism and bourgeois values as petty, crass, money& status without any superordinate values and principles. So they are disgusted with this nihilism that, for example, was in the air in the interwar yrs in Europe. Think of books like Revolt of the Masses, for example (1920s). But Ortega didn't go for Fascism as Heidegger (with a similar critique of mass society) did. Heid. thought he could provide a philosophical underpinning for the Nazis based on his fascination with the Ancient Greeks (esp. Presocratics). See What is Metaphysics. War was valorized or "worshipped." Though industrial war could not give people warrior virtues like honor, chivalry, bravery-- for it was total and mechanized slaughter-- what it might do is grind everybody down to the level of being "equals" in the "new order" awaiting the desperate masses. "We're all cogs in a majestic wheel." Embracing this leveling out can provide a sense of being part of some great momentous movement which finally gives people purpose. The masses don't really care about the content of the ideology so much as the *feeling* of being part of something bigger and grander than they've ever known. They're swept away by the juggernaut. The mob undertakes to destroy civilization. The mob had been excluded, and the elite are seduced by the totalitarian project. The elites found culture and history hollow, fake, "inauthentic" etc. , and so found it "fun" says RB to let the mob rip and "destroy civiliaztion." Many members of the bourgeoisie who had lived hypocrtically and in a banal mode of "respectability" and are in some way relieved to forget all the phony mores by being incorporated into the one pliable mass/masses.

Thank you very much! English is not my first language so it is kind of hard to read this great authors, your explanation really helped me to understand more this chapter. Amazing *claps*

I’m beginning to think this might be the most important work of political analysis that anyone could read at this moment in 2021 and could’ve been reading for the last six or 10 years. Just want to thank you again for bringing it back to light to someone like me.

I question the exactness of Ms Arendt definition regarding “Totalitarian Movements”. She conflates the ideas of ‘mass organizations’ with ‘isolated individuals’ while omitting the key element which delineates totalitarian design, i.e. a demand for subservience or use of means compelling compliance.

Thanks for doing these. This one really hit home for me and made me have a few hallelujah moments as relates to present-day cultural totalitarian movements. Arendt was a very prescient political theorist. I really appreciate this work you put in dissecting her work.