This book written half century ago is relevant to gaining a deeper perspective of what happens in the world even in 2022. Book is not that easy to read/understand. Thanks for the great video. It helps me a lot.
I went to the new school for social research to study Arendt. Most of my professors had no clue who she was. It was sad. I had to change my focus because no one thought study of totalitarianism was timely or relevant at that point. This was 2003. And we are seeing the reemergence of the push for a marxist utopia. Ha!
@@coastalcruise1345 You may consider discussion of 'young' vs. 'mature' Marx (I do not think, unlike many, there is a 'break' between them); consider also 'orthodox' Marxism of Lenin and others vs. 'revisionism' of Bernstein (and others), and 'sort of' Marxism of Marcuse, Adorno (Frankfurt school) or Sartre (existentialism)... Popper's 'Open Society' is informative.
Anti-Semitism goes way back through European History due to Cannon Law. Although you had religious based superstition it's true, because certain things were forbidden to Christians, like "usery", money lending, Non-Christians, which is the Jews in Europe pretty much, were allowed to find sucess in this activity and at some point Banking and Trade, "Mercantilism", becomes asociated with "Jewishness", especially in Germany at the time of Fredreich the Great, even before the sucess of the Rothchilds family. As a minority also, the Jews were always used as a scapegoat. In the late 18th and 19th century, it is true , using the word "jew" as a pejorative to describe almost anything at all.
@@Zing_art I know, I was, although not very well, trying to make that point. The only people who can define the word is those individuals who claim to actually be Jewish, by one definition or another. Part of the problem in Europe was/is everybody, ecept the Jews themselves, had their own rigid definition of the word "Jew". Unfortunate but, I promise I have no prejudices and not even in a "More Liberal than though" way either. It's just impractical. Where's this thausand year Reich exactly? The Anti-semites pulled the temple down on all our heads because they were so fanatically anti-semitic. It was also one reason that the Bolsheviks were so destructive, they were so anti-bourgousie they became the embodiment of the 'myth' they thaught they were fighting against. This isn't just up in the air theory mind you, take a look at what Russian politicians, aristocrats, business people, generals are saying about "The West" before Marx was even born. It's the exact same language with out the rhetoric later used to describe themselves.
This was a great video discussing some sensitive topics in a sensitive way and it was enlightening and now I want to read the book thank you for posting
I think the image of Jews as a people that especially prize education and knowledge is not without some demonstrable foundation. Because Jews had no country and were often moved on from where they were living, education and knowledge was something you could always take with you, so gained importance in the Jewish culture.
Isolation makes one prominent, for the Belifs hold by one individual's ,nd make them the allientate to others Belifs nd the elimination of others - French revolution was stopping the french against getting the Muslims , bcoz the state was supreme authority ,but the authority of the nation was degraded in the Germany bcoz this isolation resulting in the totalitarian politics
It's a ideology having a Pseudoscientific foundations, which believes that the world would be a better place if that ideology is followed some sort of utopia.
The first act of antisemitism goes all the way back to the Old Testament. It started with the story of Abraham and Sarah lying to Pharaoh about Sarah’s status as an ‘unmarried woman’ in order to be 'treated well' and gain access to the highest levels of power in Egypt. Pharaoh and his harem come down with a "mysterious illness" (venereal disease) and Pharaoh confront Abraham about his trickery and kicks Abraham and his followers out of Egypt. So there you have, Pharaoh kicking Abraham out of Egypt was the first act of antisemitism.
I found this commentary academically tedious and inefficient rather than clear and useful, which is particularly odd in light of the manifestly relevant topic. E.g., I had understood the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish to be one of ethnicity vs. religion. However, the over-wrought explanation offered here eventually suggests that it's merely a difference of formalization. Even that attempted distinction was hamstrung by vague wordiness that often went in circles (e.g., describing "antisemitism" as a desire to get rid of jews... in contrast to anti-jewishness). Similarly, apparently totalitarianism is not an "-ism", a useless distinction I find hard to evaluate other than in terms of spelling. I find this self-involved pseudo-concordance less useful than a straightforward audiobook.
She is right about antisemitism igniting a Jewish spark into a flame. In the face of opposition is where we stand the most. Where there is no opposition, there are few standing. It is what defines the Jewish people as collective family, binding together.
@~08:00 I did find it interesting when you mentioned (Arendt, claims) that the French were more antisemitic but also more nationalistic and thus not willing to cast off French Jews. This reminds me of a talk I heard by Timothy Snyder based on his book Black Earth where he also points out that the Jews that were targeted first were those without a nation to look out for their interests. So those in Poland, Ukraine for example, were (sadly) just completely obliterated from all sides, with no govt/leadership to speak out in their defense, or shelter them, whereas the last of the Jews to be rounded up were those from western European countries Norway, Denmark for example. Countries that weren't willing to give them up initially as they were still citizens (but allowed them to be oppressed within their own countries). He also makes a good point about Iraq: Do we want to get rid of an Authoritarian state and have a bunch of stateless refugees who are at risk of victimization? Or is it better they have a home state which sees them as citizens. I thought that was very interesting too. It's a very difficult question but one very much worth seriously considering. I find this particular line of inquiry really fascinating and I hope there's more I can find to read about it. I think they're really onto something.
It’s interesting, before ever knowing who Arendt was or what she wrote about, I was drawing similar conclusions about the state of Afghanistan after the US pulled out and local government began to unravel. It got me thinking along the lines of when the Soviet Union collectivized the agricultural system, or what at least led to it, not to mention the deadly consequences. If the Taliban can truly impose a vastly political or religiously motivated mandate on its citizens under threat, then how different is that to Soviet or Maoist collectivization and penalty to not comply? Inevitably in both scenarios, there are a split populous, with energy on both sides to say otherwise, the free people of Afghanistan vs the Taliban and their totalitarian analog of governmental ideology. Ultimately, there is created, a class of undesirables who are in opposition but by one way or another became the minority and lost credibility amongst society and government. The consequences are unknown or very hard to pinpoint in the present time we witness the lead up, the momentum has carried the situation in Afghanistan to the point of blind and willful unpredictability. Just as it was the collectivist policies in the production of food that leveled the sustaining and integral component of a functioning society in the Soviet Union, the ideologically analogous decision making of the Taliban could trigger a similar outcome in one or more areas of industry or practice that are integral to the survival of a society. The threat of noncompliance is ever present, which is ultimately a natural tool of totalitarian regimes, or those rooted in authoritarian style rule. History is simply itself in this instance. No precedent can be referenced too stringently as a model for the future as all styles of totalitarian regimes were slightly different, but Afghanistan seems to check boxes in the realm of a post war society searching for repair. What we are witnessing is a disorganized yet highly motivated faction of the Taliban who have in essence, collectivized the authority ideology to those who support it. However the strength of numbers becomes the state and thus the authority necessary to use force and political coercion. The implementation of this style across an entire country will surely broaden and expand into many realms similar to the Nazi’s cultural takeover. The Taliban could easily seek out the undesirable refugee or create the new iteration of that image, in the near future, that possibility still remains. The fact they have reached out to the EU for aid is highly indicative of some sort of brewing civil upheaval and unrest as recourses become scarce. The unpredictability of the situation seems to suggest some authoritative figure may attempt a total takeover using totalitarian measures for the 21st century. It could happen anywhere at any time, I fear faster than we can anticipate based solely on the references of past regimes. I just hope we can keep up with the growing list of concerning and relevant factors that would constitute a totalitarian crisis, the emphasis on accuracy and factual background has never been been more important. To get it wrong could spell doom for millions, for many years to come. Responsibility and perspective are what we must hold the highest right now.
Hannah truely oooooozez intillect, I listen to few interviews I find online just to remind myself the power of thought when you have understanding of things rather than knowing names of things, if I could go back in time, I would find her in USA
Why I m Afraid, for India ?? Bcoz India ppl r no way nationalistic (bcoz they have no external or outer territorial claims where they could express their strongness, nd hence it get manifested within the territorial claims within India - they strong divided society is manifestation bcoz of fatalistic movement of Aryans who r so called "Bhramans" bcoz bhramanis stopped the outward movements of ppl bcoz they didn't wants to go out for exploration, nd hence they stopped themselves up by not letting lower communities coming in contact with any external or outer religion exploration - bcoz of economic surplus they, still had the chance to go out for exploration nd colonialism - but, bcoz of Islam they turned home nd buergoaeua class which was in search of new market couldn't get it nd got trapped in it their extremism was barred by lower class of society
This video is like skim reading the book in order to have a clear idea of the argument being presented. Without it you are very likely to misunderstand and get lost. Thanks very much.
cherishedness of diversity was never expected in west which resulted In anti Semitic sentiments in west against the some sort of civilizational crisis of west - Humein Hamari pehechan mita ne ko kaha jata hai mera lahu Se Hindustan likha jata hai
An interesting take, though she still has an "outside looking in" point of view in my opinion, which is understandable. Her assessment strikes me as a "sooooo close, but it just missed the mark". Her work seems to focus on totalitarianism, though you have the flipside also spawn for similar situations, such as various anarchist movements which are just as violent as a totalitarian state, if not more, but achieve fewer "horrors" due to their disorganization. Perhaps she meant violent extremism is a general sense? And there is also a level of naive optimism as well when she had spoke of when the conspiracy theories take over the mob. As if people in positions of political and financial power _don't_ conspire, because they do. Perhaps they do not conspire to the degree the mob believes, but it does happen. When it comes to secret societies the mob's PoV is "Why be secret if there is nothing to hide?" and with conspiracy theories themselves, the ante has always been upped because ones that are actually proven to be true (such as the CIA's mind control programs) validate the mob and they believe "Well if that can be true, than so can this." Her errors on a few things are that "antisemitism" is a recent invention, there are writings from Rome that have the exact same criticisms that modern antisemites make, so either everyone labeled an antisemite today isn't, or her definition is off. That Jews are apolitical is another, the problem most people have with them is that they are _very_ political, once they achieve equal or privileged status, the epitome of this is probably Karl Marx, the father of one of the very things which disgusted her, some of the earliest national socialists were Jews as well (something most refuse to admit). But they have also taken part in lots of social movements which are most certainly political, most recent example being things like feminism (Gloria Steinem is probably the most infamous) or gay rights movements, and of course the biggest of all Zionism, which is directly linked with Jewish identity. My 0.02$
