Is Britain a totalitarian regime?

75 Mike Schmeitzner “Total State” and “Totalitarian Revolution”. Richard Löwenthal's totalitarianism concept on the test stand 1. Changes and findings Richard Löwenthal's professional and political life (1908-1991) as well as his independent contribution to the development of the totalitarianism theory (s) appear remarkable in several respects, as they were the result of a long-lasting one (political) process of change that significantly influenced his attitude towards questions of fascism, Bolshevism and totalitarianism.1 In the "Age of Extremes" (Eric Hobsbawm) Löwenthal fell under the intellectual spell of Marxist and Leninist theories, before he - after a hard argument with of the Nazi dictatorship - in British exile to become a Social Democrat and then to an “important intellectual carrier of the process of 'westernization'.” 2 The communist student leader in the second half of the Weimar Republic and the socialist theorist in exile had also developed from 1935 onwards a developed a dictatorship researcher who was soon able to present clever analyzes with the fine pen of a renowned publicist. The British citizen (from 1947) and editor-in-chief of the Observer finally managed what only a few exiles besides himself managed to do at such a late point in time - the academic “side entry” in the Federal Republic of Germany. At the side of Ernst Fraenkel, he taught since 1961 as a full professor of political science at the Free University (FU) Berlin. Here he exercised "with eloquence, willingness to discuss, quick-wittedness and analytical capacity to be very attractive" until 1974.3 In addition, the internationally known communism expert had acted as an intellectual proponent since the late 1960s. Backes 2007; Mike Schmeitzner, introduction to Richard Löwenthal. In: Schmeitzner 2009, pp. 9-61; Keßler 2011, pp. 74-134; Schmeitzner 2012. 2 Backes 2014; see also Bavaj 2010. 3 Backes 2014, p. 517. 76 thinker of the German social democracy, whose chancellor Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt he advised one after the other.4 Löwenthal laid the foundation stone for his academic career in Berlin, too, but unlike many of his later scientific colleagues are unable to achieve a “straightforward” career. Although he received his doctorate in 1931 after studying economics and law at the universities of Berlin and Heidelberg with a thesis on "The Marxian theory of the crisis cycle - an attempt at an overall picture", he was subsequently unable to gain a foothold in the academic field . The “great intellectual maturity” 5 that the main reviewer had attested to him in the doctoral procedure was not enough to be able to succeed scientifically in the great crisis - especially as a Jew and a socialist. During this time he did not get beyond more than minor journalistic work and a unique range of courses at the Berlin School of Politics6. Löwenthal was primarily politically active: he, who came from an educated middle-class family, joined the Communists at an early age - at the age of 18 - and found a "political teacher" in Franz Borkenau; 7 he wanted Moscow's "social-fascist" turn against the SPD however, the communist student leader did not support it. After his break with the KPD (1929) and its right-wing split from the KPD opposition, he became a member of the strictly conspiratorial Leninist Organization (the Org.), Which was only established after 1933 and under the title of the program of its founder Walter Loewenheim (Neu Beginnen / NB ) gained a little more attention. During the Berlin resistance and after 1935 in exile (first in Prague, then in London), Löwenthal developed into a pioneer of new beginnings, which was particularly evident in his essays on the fascism discussion. These contributions and his monograph Beyond Capitalism, published in early 1947, established his scientific reputation. His second monograph, published in 1957, a voluminous biography of Ernst Reuters - written together with Willy Brandt - concluded his “westernization” visibly from the outside world: if in 1947 he had considered a third European path to socialism possible, both earlier ones have now identified each other Left-wing socialists (Brandt / Löwenthal) with the ruling Bureau, who died in 1953, 4 Cf. Schmeitzner, Introduction. In: Schmeitzner 2009, p. 11. 5 Quoted from: Schmidt 2007, p. 70f., 77. 6 Schmeitzner, introduction. In: Schmeitzner 2009, p. 15. 7 Keßler 2011, p. 76. 77 germeister von (West-) Berlin. Reuter seemed to offer himself as a projection screen for both left-wing socialists, as he had transformed from KPD general secretary (1921) to a successful SPD politician and successfully stood up to Stalin in the divided German capital after 1948.8 Much more significant for his appointment to the FU Berlin, however, was the essay Totalitarian and Democratic Revolution that appeared in 1960 and finally established his reputation as a totalitarian theorist.9 As will be seen, with the approach of the “totalitarian” or “permanent revolution” he had the deadlocked debate with a new one New attempt at explanation and tied to its own roots in terms of the history of ideas. In just a short time Löwenthal, who was largely related to Hannah Arendt, 10 moved up into the circle of leading totalitarian theorists. The publication of his important contribution in the anthology Ways of Totalitarianism Research may prove this.11 This also had institutional consequences: unlike the Frankfurt University, which, after Max Horkheimer's and Theodor W. Adorno's return from exile, soon became a refuge of “Critical theory”, the Free University of Berlin was associated with anti-totalitarianism and the theory of totalitarianism, primarily because of the work of the émigrés Fraenkel and Löwenthal.12 In the course of the “student revolt” this had to lead to hard arguments with those part of the students who - like in the case of Löwenthal - they were far more willing to accept the left-wing socialist activists of the 1930s than the "consensual liberal" political scientist. His involvement at the head of the Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft gave this dispute an additional emotional note.13 Regardless of these conflicts, Löwenthal was seen by many as an innovative thinker in terms of totalitarianism, who tried to enrich totalitarianism as a dominance syndrome that had hitherto been more structurally based, with a decisive dynamic element: With a concept of totalitarianism that “through the unrestricted exercise of rule by a monopoly party and the ideology of its 8 Cf. Brandt / Löwenthal 1957. 9 Löwenthal 1974 (published in: The Month 13 [1960], H. 146, pp. 29-40 ). He had previously published several articles dealing with the subject of totalitarianism. See Lowenthal 1957a, 1958. 10 See Löwenthal 1989, p. 403. 11 Löwenthal 1974. 12 Jones 1999, pp. 194f., 198. On the influence of Löwenthal at the Free University of Berlin up to the student riots, see also Tent 1988, p 345, 397f., 417f. 13 On the institutional influence of Löwenthal as co-chairman of the Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft (1971-1973) see Wehrs 2014, pp. 198f., 257-260, 328f., 468-472. 78 was determined by a given dynamic of a social upheaval directed from above ”, Löwenthal had avoided“ some serious difficulties of the classical totalitarian theory ”, 14 as described by Hannah Arendt with her fixation on the“ extremes of horror ”(ideology and terror) or Carl Joachim Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzeziński had been represented with their “outline of an unchangeable institutional structure ”.15 By revealing the“ power dynamics ”of a“ new revolutionary party type ”, the“ dynamic aspect of totalitarian rule ”is now“ in the structural aspect "The limits of dictatorship" were honored in his model: These would always become visible when the revolutionary process of transformation of the monopoly party was exhausted - be it because of its principled utopian aim, the seemingly impossible shaping of people or because of “unforeseen cons equenzen ”of the upheavals set in motion. With this, Löwenthal recognized and described the "fundamental tension" between the totalitarian claim to rule and the "in reality always only limited penetration, control and regulation of society [...]". The “ideal type” of totalitarian rule could never become a “real type ”.17 With these insights and knowledge, Löwenthal (together with Martin Draht and Robert C. Tucker) undertook a“ development-theoretical interpretation ”of totalitarianism that stood out from other interpretations. 18 2. Thinking the Total State: The Analysis of Fascism The origins of his theoretical considerations on totalitarianism can be traced back to 1935. In the beginning, however, the structural approach, which was focused solely on fascism, dominated. When Löwenthal left Berlin for Prague in August 1935 because of his personal endangerment and an internal conflict with the founder of the NB, Löwenheim, 19 to visit the foreign 14 snakes 1976, p. 72. 15 Cf. Schmeitzner, introduction. In: Schmeitzner 2009, p. 53. 16 Schlangen 1976, p. 72. 17 Schmiechen-Ackermann 2002, p. 101. 18 Möll 1998, p. 7f. Bernhard Sutor advocates a similar classification, which Löwenthal and Draht assign to the "sociological development-theoretical interpretation". In: Sutor 1985, pp. 4, 46-50. 19 See Schmeitzner, introduction. In: Schmeitzner 2009, p. 16f .; Schmidt 2007, p. 123ff. In order to strengthen the leadership of New Begins, he had already developed concrete ideas of the new form of rule and worked out a manuscript for the Nazi economic constitution. In Prague he benefited from the willingness of the exile executive committee of the SPD (Sopade) to integrate: The editors-in-chief of the Zeitschrift für Sozialismus (Rudolf Hilferding) and the Sozialistische Aktion (Paul Hertz) opened up important publication opportunities for Löwenthal, as did other representatives of smaller socialist groups (e.g. Franz Borkenau). He found an important advocate especially in Hertz, who leaned towards the left wing of the Sopade and deliberately sought to join forces to start over. Hertz paved the way for him in Hilferding's theoretical organ, 20 in which he soon advanced to become the most ardent publicist. Under the pseudonym "Paul Sering" he was able to distinguish himself as an important interpreter of fascism.21 Despite some economist constraints, Löwenthal found his own genuine interpretation in his early analyzes, which ascribed particular importance to the state and its tendencies towards independence. In his first essay, which appeared before he had left Berlin, he examined the state as a “promoter of macroeconomic rationality” and “monopoly capitalist expansion” as well as a “subsidy state”. According to Löwenthal, the increased demands on the state had led to a struggle between the various “interest parties” for the state and to the “growing importance of the state bureaucracy” including its ability to achieve “independence” and “balance”. 22 Published in the first part of his weeks later Analysis of fascism, he then shed light on the “system of democracy of interests” and its crisis: the policy of this democracy of interests was “not 'made' unilaterally by the ruling class” due to the strength of the labor movement; he had thereby carried "resultant character". In the crisis after 1929 it had become more difficult to find a compromise because of the party fragmentation. The state failed at the moment “when the masses became dependent on their performance. 20 Cf. the letter from Paul Hertz to Rudolf Hilferding of January 14, 1936 (AdsD, NL Paul Hertz, No. XLII). The original of the file is in the IISG Amsterdam. 21 The code name was chosen by Löwenthal himself or by the illegally working group in Berlin when he was working on a first manuscript for the Zeitschrift für Sozialismus. See Sering 1948, p. 276 (short biography Paul Sering). 22 Sering 1935a, p. 716f. The editorial staff of the magazine had referred to the "comrade living in Germany" in a resolution; the manuscript had been made available by the "international management of Neu Beginnen". 80 gen largest ”. The “economically justified need for a strong state” has turned into “the cry for the elimination of parliamentarism” .23 In this phase the “sections of the bourgeoisie and landowners in need of support” had “those interested in armaments and the executive power”, and a little later also with the NSDAP, as a pact. The fascist party, which sociologically encompassed more than the "middle classes", had previously inoculated its members and supporters in need of help to confide in them in order to be able to help them - in possession of state power: "A strong state under unified leadership, which with the Shackle the prospects puts an end, a state that actively intervenes in the crisis and puts an end to liberalism, a state that frees the national economy from global economic dependencies ”. The coalition that the NSDAP entered into with the “bourgeois reactionary wing” at the beginning of 1933 quickly stripped it off with a “coup d'état”: it “unconditionally seized the state apparatus”, “got rid of all coalition ties” and “countered its power in the struggle for extermination the proletarian mass organizations ”realized. After the end of the struggle, "the general party ban and [...] the end of the coalition are only natural stages on the way to a total state" .24 For Löwenthal, the process of the "coup" ultimately turned out to be a "fascist [real] revolution" , since a “new higher form of state organization” and a “new reactionary form of social organization” have been created.25 With this assessment, which was heavily controversial within Neubeginnen, 26 however, no direct line to the concept of “totalitarian "Or the" permanent revolution ". Only decades later did Löwenthal attempt to integrate the German example into his model with reference to the upheavals in the class structure, with the "foreign policy upheavals, racial upheavals and [the] upheavals in the state structure ".27 Now, in the second part of his analysis of fascism, he necessarily concentrated on the years 1933/34, in which he noted the "amalgamation" of the NSDAP party apparatus with the state bureaucracy, which - connected with the "Zerbrechung 23 Sering 1935b, pp. 771-780. 24 Sering 1935b, p. 781f., 785. 25 Sering 1935b, p. 787. 26 See minutes of the discussion with Sering in Paris, March 1936 (IISG Amsterdam, New Beginning, C 43); see also Schmeitzner, introduction. In: Schmeitzner 2009, p. 38. 27 Broszat 1983, p. 95. The lecture by Richard Löwenthal printed in this volume had the significant title: The National Socialist “seizure of power” - a revolution? Your place among the totalitarian revolutions of our century, pp. 42-74. 81 of all independent social organizations "- a" huge increase in power and modernization of the state apparatus, maximum standardization, centralization and independence of the bureaucracy "28 The attempt of the state party to achieve a" unity of state and society "with the help of" fascist mass organizations " However, he viewed it as a “bureaucratic illusion” .29 For Löwenthal, however, the reasons lay less in the “empirical reality of the fascist systems” and their “self-image”, as Martin Jänicke pointed out Mussolini's church policy thinks.30 Rather, he had the “substantive reactionary tendency of the supporting strata” of fascism in mind: After the “Röhm affair” in 1934, these forces were only concerned with a “shutdown” of the “class forces” within society 31 He also referred to the social retroactive effect There was an increasing “fascist totality” whose state had to quickly prove itself to be a “barrier” if “special interests” from the population were to rise up against them. Furthermore, he assumed that the "independence tendencies of the various social spheres" (for example law, religion, science) could only be suppressed by the Nazi regime, but not eliminated.32 With a view to the Protestant Church in Germany, the empirical Reality right: The attempts of the Nazi regime to transform it into a German-Christian Nazi church ultimately failed because of the “independence tendencies” of the newly emerging Confessing Church. As far as the spheres of law and science were concerned, his view in 1935 was probably too optimistic.33 Let us note that for Löwenthal, the “fascist [real] revolution” did not yet include a “permanent revolution” in which the monopoly party opened up society 28 Sering 1935c, p. 839. 29 Sering 1935c, p. 842. 30 Jänicke 1971, p. 191. In fact, Mussolini did not attempt to penetrate all spheres of Italian society and the state. His “total state” excluded the Roman Catholic Church, with which a state treaty was even signed, and the royal family as possible targets of subjugation or penetration. 31 Sering 1935c, p. 842. 32 Sering 1935c, p. 854. 33 Unlike Mussolini's regime, Hitler's regime barely stopped at traditional institutions. While the Protestant Church, which only exists as a power factor in Germany, was subject to massive penetration, the regime increased its influence on the Catholic Church in later years (despite the 1933 Concordat). Löwenthal himself later investigated these attempts at “synchronization” and the resulting “social refusal” in the ecclesiastical milieu. See Löwenthal / von zur Mühlen 1990, p. 19f. 82 transformed a utopian goal, but “merely” the phase of institutionalization of the new party dictatorship. But even his interpretation of the fascist “total state” did not amount to a static and consistent state of state and society. "Limits of dictatorship", as they were to appear later in his concept of "permanent revolution", also existed here, only they resulted from the preserved "social roots" .34 Löwenthal's interpretation of fascism, however, stood out from the analysis of other left-wing socialists and Communists fundamentally from35: He warned against a “too broad, vague term” of fascism, to which he did not want to assign “bloody anti-working class dictatorships” such as the Horthy regime in Hungary and the Pilsudski dictatorship in Poland. There the "possibility of forming oppositional power centers [...] is controlled, restricted, in individual cases violently suppressed" (especially with regard to the communists), but it is "not fundamentally abolished". The “perfect fascism” on the other hand eliminates “every possibility of legally independent organizations”. In such a “total state” there is only one party, instead of the class organizations “professional organizations dependent on the party”. With the policy of “Gleichschaltung”, even areas that are unrelated to politics such as “sport or socializing” would be aligned in the sense of the Nazi regime. The “total monopoly of organization” is thus accompanied by a “total monopoly of propaganda”. The press, radio, education and culture are subject to a “systematic positive-fascist influence”, 36 which only exists in Italy and Germany. Löwenthal's interpretation of fascism would, of course, remain imperfect without his analysis of the special German roots. He made a (supposed) German special path jointly responsible for the rise of National Socialism since the middle of the 19th century. The “fundamental peculiarity” of German development results from the contradiction between advanced industrial development and the backwardness of the political system of rule. Unlike in England and France, where “national idea, democracy, self-determination, personal freedom, civilization, legal order” were the expression of a bourgeoisie who had come to power politically, German national consciousness lacked ties to “any form of the idea of ​​freedom”. In Germany, instead, there is a “veneration of violence” as a “history-making force”, and a “democratic 34 Sering 1935c, p. 855” is also missing here. 35 Cf. Schmeitzner, Introduction. In: Schmeitzner 2009, p. 36. 36 Sering 1935c, p. 851f. 83 cal revolution ”.37 The Nazi worldview is the latest product of this specifically German special path, which he characterized as follows:“ The ideology of the NSDAP shows the typical fascist traits - state worship, the struggle against parliament, the deadly hatred against the labor movement and nationalism are nourished and preserved from the rich sources of the German reactionary tradition. From here on their specific national coloring: the stab in the back, the November crime, the supranational powers, the racial theory as a worldview, the anti-Semitism as a practice, the tribute and the interest bondage. In the view of the nation as the bearer of superior racial inheritance, the national-liberal-pan-German coupling of national consciousness and worship of violence celebrates its victorious resurrection. ”38 3. From Fascism to Totalitarian Theory William David Jones agrees when he describes Löwenthal's criticism of fascism as“ theoretical Basis ”for a later criticism of totalitarianism. In Löwenthal's considerations on the “total state”, the “totalitarian party” and the “totalitarianism” of the state party, the transition from fascism to totalitarianism theory seemed to be laid out.39 But the path to a (comparative) totalitarianism theory should be for the NB pioneer prove to be more tedious than, for example, with Franz Borkenau or Gerhard Leibholz, who just as early used the “totalitarianism term [...] to denote the political system in Germany” .40 Even in the first part of his fascism study, Löwenthal himself referred to the "Analogies" pointed out, which were drawn "between the political dynamics of the proletarian and the fascist revolution". But such formal correspondences (“mass party” and “revolutionary situation”) could not cover up the “opposition of the two revolutions”. Their “class contents” and forms of development are completely different: The fascist revolution only knows a “negative terrorist, not a creative form of mass activity” .41 It was this orientation of Löwenthal on the “creative force” of the socialist movement in overcoming capitalism ”, which prevented him from measuring the Soviet “left-wing dictatorship” with those standards that he 37 Sering 1936, pp. 960, 965. 38 Sering 1936, pp. 973ff. 39 Jones 1999, p. 84. 40 Maier 1996, p. 240f. 41 Sering 1935b, p. 785f. 84 based the characterization of the rule structure of the fascist 'total state' ”. 42 Löwenthal's temporary adherence to the premise of the“ dictatorship of the proletariat ”and the original form of the Soviet regime made a comparison of the Soviet and fascist“ compulsory organizations ”as complete appear inappropriately.43 In 1936 he could only imagine a “restoration of the originally supporting forces of the dictatorship” in the USSR and a “Marxist renewal” of the Soviet Communist Party; For him, a “restoration of freedom rights” was only conceivable “within certain limits” - namely in the context of “maintaining party monopoly and centralized state power” .44 In spring 1939 - after the experiences of the Moscow trials and the Soviet persecution of socialists in the war in Spain - he spoke of a “totalitarian degeneration of the Soviet power” .45 Ultimately, the processes of “westernization” to which he was subject in British exile were of decisive importance: from 1941 onwards he (as NB functionary) belonged to the expanded leadership of the newly founded Union German socialist organizations in Great Britain, which, due to the strong influence of the Sopade and the Labor Party, were shaped by social democrats; Here he met well-known colleagues like Sebastian Haffner and George Orwell (as an employee of British news agencies and newspapers), who had a lasting influence on him.46 By 1944/45 he had finally said goodbye to the "Model of the USSR" 47.48 In early 1947, Löwenthal published with him Beyond capitalism. A contribution to the socialist reorientation49 a kind of “master plan” for a democratic socialism. The book itself “marked a turning point in Löwenthal's thinking: the paradigm of the social revolution and the associated 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was now finally in favor of 42 Backes 2007, p. 341. 43 Minutes of the discussion with Sering in Paris, March 1936 (IISG Amsterdam, Beginning Again, C 43); see also Schmeitzner, introduction. In: Schmeitzner 2009, p. 40f. 44 Ernst [Richard Löwenthal], Status and tendencies of the Soviet economy, November 25, 1936 (IISG Amsterdam, NL Paul Hertz, folder L, no. 1); see also Schmeitzner, introduction. In: Schmeitzner 2009, p. 41f. 45 Sering 1939, p. 135. 46 Cf. Schmidt 2007, pp. 179-226; Schmeitzner, introduction. In: Schmeitzner 2009, p. 20ff .; Keßler 2011, p. 81ff. 47 Schmidt 2007, p. 145. 48 Kessler 2011, p. 81; see also Schmeitzner, introduction. In: Schmeitzner 2009, pp. 20ff., 46. 49 The volume was licensed by the American occupation forces in 1946 and was published in February 1947. Cf. Sering 1947. 85 abandoned a socialist restructuring that was considered to be parliamentary enforceable ”. 50 Quite apparently this new approach was based on the election victory of the Labor Party in the summer of 1945; now a nationalization of key industries and banks and the introduction of investment management in a democratic way seemed possible. Löwenthal proposed a “third way” between the Soviet dictatorship and the recently overcome fascism on the one hand and a liberal capitalist system on the other. He had in mind "supplementing parliamentary democracy with a central investment management system oriented towards the interests of the working population" 51, which - unlike "totalitarian" Soviet planning - should be democratically controlled.52 The volume published in western Germany quickly saw several Conditions and an effect that radiated across all German zones.53 young talents in German post-war politics (such as Helmut Schmidt) were deeply impressed by the content, 54 which was certainly also based on Löwenthal's analyzes of Stalinism and fascism. It was the first time that he treated "both great worldview dictatorships of the 20th century together in one central study", although - apart from a narrow conclusion - he did not subject them to any systematic comparison.55 In the fascism chapter he made a reference to The essence and function of the “total state” - where it had already developed its own “signature” in 1935. Although he dealt with the fascisms in Italy and Germany at this point, a look at the Soviet Union chapter shows that he also used identical or similar formulations here and now interpreted this system as a “totalitarian” one-party dictatorship He saw Bolshevism / Stalinism primarily in the system of rule: the “total state” is the 50 Schmeitzner 2012, p. 27f. 51 Keßler 2011, p. 84. 52 See Sering 1947, p. 188. 53 On the resonance of the volume see Buchstein 1995; Schmeitzner 2013. 54 Cf. Schmidt 1996, p. 125. 55 Cf. Schmeitzner 2012, p. 27; Sering 1947, p. 212f. 56 See Sering 1947, pp. 153-156, 212f. 86 “System [...] of the centralized one-party state, whose ruling party exercises the monopoly over all forms of social organization as well as information. [...] This network of forced propaganda and forced organization, which was not content with the mere suppression of the opposing opinion and the organization of the opposition, like the old police states, but tried to capture the last subjects propagandistically and organizationally and to mobilize them for the purposes of the state, is the real thing Marks of the total state of the 20th century. The dictatorship is the lifting of all legal restrictions on state power. Total dictatorship is the total abolition of the rights of the individual not only during an emergency, but as a permanent system: the rights only exist as long as they do not conflict with the purposes of the state - in a totalitarian regime there are no rights against the state. ”57 As you can see, this dominance-focused interpretation includes a purely structuralist approach. In contrast to his fascism studies, however, he here gave the individual and his elementary rights a prominent position, which can also be seen as an expression of Löwenthal's own change to a democratic and liberal socialist. The rule-focused interpretation of the “total state” also included the mechanisms of persecution and compulsions to justify, which he mostly dealt with in the context of a fascism-Bolshevism discussion. “Protective custody and concentration camps, special courts […], arbitrary murders, arbitrary imprisonment and arbitrary expropriations for reasons of the 'reason of state' interpreted at will” are “inevitable consequences of the fundamental principle of total dictatorship” .58 Both dictatorships were assigned the system of forced labor , which Löwenthal viewed as an important element of the “totalitarian methods of rule ”.59 He considered its compulsion to justify just as important: a dictatorship with such an abundance of power can only be justified in the“ consciousness of the masses ”with the“ threat of overpowering enemies ”. This type of dictatorship requires “enemies, both external and internal” .60 The term “totalitarian thinking” aptly describes this type of establishment and communication of ubiquitous enemy image constructions. The National Socialists would have seen in “World Jewry” their “all enemy”, the Communists in “World Capital”. However, the “political power of the world youth” 57 Sering 1947, p. 117f., Emphasis in the original. 58 Sering 1947, p. 118. 59 Sering 1947, p. 150. 60 Sering 1947, p. 155. 87 dentums […] itself an invention of the Nazis ”, the“ power of monopoly capital ”on the other hand a“ social reality - but in to reality ”it does not have the“ character of a unified, worldwide, omnipresent, wire-pulling conspiracy ”that“ communist theory attaches to it ”.He therefore came to the conclusion that “the totalitarian thinking of the communists [...] had distorted 'Marxism' so far” “until it could fulfill the same function for them as the racial theory did for the Nazis: paint a diabolical all-enemy who is nothing more than the projection of one's own will to omnipotence in the outside world. ”61 For Löwenthal, these domination-focused commonalities ended where the various ways of conquering power and the social content of dictatorships were at stake. With a view to fascism, he clearly followed on from his studies from 1935 - when he wrote that the National Socialists had come into power in alliance with the old elites and the “aggressive-imperialist groups of monopoly capital”; or that the “essence of the fascist dictatorship” included the “maintenance of property rights in principle”, which did not exclude the expropriation of individuals (for example, as Jews). He described the new "upper class" as typical of the regime, which he characterized as the "amalgam" of "leading elements of the old capitalist upper class" with the "ascending elements of the party hierarchy." which he placed in the context of the avant-garde, centralist party formation of Lenin (1903) and the lack of Russian tradition of democracy and the rule of law. The establishment of a “one-party state”, which “history before the Bolshevik revolution did not know”, was, however, a “product of the civil war”, not a result of Lenin's foresight. It was only in the civil war that the Bolsheviks suppressed all political opponents and competitors and created a new state apparatus.63 He saw the decisive turning point in 1921, when the Bolsheviks “faced the most momentous decision in their history”: Instead of relinquishing power, Lenin had decided to use the “state power to meet the missing conditions for socialism, modern large-scale industry […] from our own 61 Sering 1947, p. 231f. 62 Sering 1947, pp. 115, 118f., 212f. 63 Sering 1947, p. 135. 88 Kraft “and to create under the conditions of a backward Russia. The use of state power to “transform society” has made the “one-party state from a more or less accidental result of the civil war an inner necessity for the new phase of development”. Based on the analysis of a new class that has meanwhile become “independent from the working masses and tends to be hereditary”, including the “totalitarian planning” initiated by it, Löwenthal came to the conclusion: 64 “These are the features that have given the Bolshevik state its totalitarian character: The one-party system is not just a weapon for the defense of the new society against a feudal or bourgeois counter-revolution, the prerequisites of which have long since vanished, - it is the tool of state power for the ever new upheaval of society with regard to goals that have been set and tenaciously fixed. […] It is the tool of a permanent revolution from above, which demands the active participation of the masses, but excludes their free choice between affirmation or rejection of the proposed measures. It is the tool of decades of exertion of violence in which the rights of the individual or the interests of the group are nothing, the overall purpose set from above is everything. ”65 Löwenthal's paradigm of the“ permanent revolution from above ”- the later conception of the“ totalitarian dictatorship ” - had its origin here. It was closely linked to the Soviet development of catching up industrialization through a monopoly party and the pursuit of a utopian goal; Lines of connection to the fascisms were missing here. Although he used the term “permanent revolution from above” in a generalized way for the previous socio-economic upheavals in the Soviet Union, he referred to the concrete Soviet self-image: In the volume on the history of the Soviet Communist Party from 1938, the process of forced collectivization was in the countryside as a “revolution from above”, “on the initiative of state power, with direct support from below”, by millions of peasants.66 Löwenthal saw the (early) nature of the Bolshevik party and that “revolution from above” “A“ straight theoretical line ”from Lenin to Stalin.67 The concept of permanence, which did not appear in Stalin's self-understanding, seems to Loewenthal to be from Karl Marx and Leon Trotsky, but not from Sigmund Neumann 64 Sering 1947, pp. 137f., 213. 65 Sering 1947, pp. 142f. Highlighting in the original. 66 OA 1945, p. 382. 67 Sering 1947, p. 266. 89, who with the term “permanent revolution” is less a radical and permanent upheaval in socio-economic conditions than a permanent sequence of purges, terror, mobilizations and “warlike activity ”.68 4. The dynamic factor or: the“ totalitarian revolution ”In the period that followed, Löwenthal continued to deal with the Soviet Union - as an editorial writer for the Oberserver, as a publicist and as a contributor to the US-controlled Congress for Cultural Freedom . In 1950 he had to choose one of the two sides of the Cold War due to the failure of the “Third Way” he had envisaged. In view of his developmental process, he was able to imagine the future of Western European social democracy “only as the left wing of a counter-front of the West led by the United States ”.69 Of course, this had an impact on himself: on the one hand, he was one of the permanent authors of the The monthly magazine, the most important German-language medium of the congress for cultural freedom; on the other hand, it never fell into the form of militant anti-communism that was at least temporarily decisive for renegades like Franz Borkenau or Arthur Koestler. In magazines such as Commentary and Problems of Communism he developed into a communism expert who was particularly interested in developments in the Soviet Union after Stalin's death. The paradigm of the “permanent revolution from above” continued to dominate his thinking. Regardless of Stalin's death and the resulting renunciation of mass terror and the camp system, this type of revolution continues - due to Khrushchev's socio-economic reforms aimed at communism: “The permanent revolution is on again.” 70 With his central studies on totalitarianism , which appeared a short time before and after his appointment to the Free University of Berlin, he developed this paradigm further. His best-known contribution, Totalitarian and Democratic Revolution, published 68 Neumann 2013, pp. 76, 306f. Regardless of this, Löwenthal received Neumann's work and made it fruitful for his research. See Löwenthal 1974, p. 360; Löwenthal 1983, p. 74. 69 Löwenthal 1977, p. XXXII. 70 Lowenthal 1957b. In other articles he also expressed his conviction that Khrushchev would not return to Stalin's “terrorist methods” but would follow his “recipe for permanent revolution from above”, see Lowenthal 1958, p Organ The month. His speech at the Congress for Cultural Freedom in West Berlin in June 1960 appeared under the title Messianism, Nihilism and the Future 1962, while the larger-scale study The Totalitarian Revolutions of our Time was able to receive even more people via Radio Free Europe in 1965 his essay The totalitarian dictatorship (1966) was the outcome of a lecture and discussion. In all of these studies he tried to work out the historical forerunner of this "permanent revolution from above" - ​​namely the special features of the ideology and the new dictatorship party. In Totalitarian and Democratic Revolution he had described Lenin's party as an organization of "extremists" A short time later, Marx's messianic conceptions of the proletariat as the subject of history came into play; in this context he also addressed Marx's vague statements on a “dictatorship of the proletariat”. But it was Lenin who converted the “chiliastic myth” into a “totalitarian ideology” and developed the idea that “there is only one right way, only one recipe for the fulfillment of the historical promise, and that this fulfillment therefore depends on the Creation of the instrument on which the disciplined avant-garde depends, under the right leadership with the right sense of purpose ”. Lenin's “real totalitarian party” unites the concrete hope of salvation and a certain type of organization; it thus “laid the seed for future totalitarian rule” and established the “vision of a total transformation of society”. 71 In contrast to Beyond Capitalism, the establishment of a “one-party dictatorship” was no longer just a “product of the Civil War ”- and thus also as a coincidence - but as the result of conscious action by a totalitarian party. This insight corresponds to Löwenthal's statement that the institutions of totalitarian rule in Soviet Russia were “actually complete” as early as 1921.72 Karl 71 Löwenthal 1974, p. 367, had such an analysis; Lowenthal 1962, quoted in Schmeitzner 2009, pp. 458-474, here p. 463; Löwenthal 1965, quoted from Schmeitzner 2009, pp. 475-545, here pp. 514, 519, 531f .; Löwenthal 1966, pp. 206f. 72 Löwenthal 1965, quoted from Schmeitzner 2009, pp. 475-545, here p. 532. 91 Kautsky, Lenin's sharpest socialist critic, presented as early as 1921! was influenced by the Soviet model and ultimately also by Marxism, as shown not least by his well-known essay from that year. While in Beyond Capitalism he had raised a specific reference from Stalin from 1938, he was now referring to statements by Lenin (1918) and Stalin (1926) on the (alleged) differences between “bourgeois” and “proletarian” revolution: the former tries to adapt the political conditions to the bourgeois economic order that has already grown up in feudal society, while the latter has the task of building the "new socialist economy" with the help of the conquered state power. In doing so, however, Stalin reversed the Marxian “relationship between 'substructure' and 'superstructure'”, that is to say, state power “was used as a lever to create new“ production relations ””, which in a predominantly agricultural country (but also in general) was only “violent Revolution and dictatorship ”. 74 According to Löwenthal, however, this type of distinction was not a matter of the opposition between“ bourgeois ”and“ proletarian ”revolution. Rather, a distinction must be made between the “known democratic revolutions of Europe on the one hand” and the “new process of the totalitarian revolution on the other hand”. While in the western revolutions the phases of dictatorship (for example with Cromwell and Robespierre) remained only "episodes", the "special and historically unprecedented thing about the totalitarian regimes [...] lies in the fact that they do not only have power with Conquer revolutionary methods, but rather try to assert them by deliberately keeping a process of controlled social upheaval going - that they strive for a 'permanent revolution from above'. "75 Here he provided for the first time a definition of totalitarianism that brought both paradigms together: 73 Kautsky's decisive statement was : “A new bureaucracy was set up in the state, following the pattern that Lenin had established in 1904 for the party organization. If, according to this model, the central authority of the party had to monitor, direct and determine all expressions of life by party comrades and the labor movement in general, then the new bureaucracy should not only control all expressions of life of the entire population in the life of the state, but also in the production and circulation process, yes, monitor, guide and determine the entire social life, all thinking and feeling of the masses. ”(Kautsky 1990, p. 232) 74 Löwenthal 1974, p. 374f. 75 Löwenthal 1974, p. 363. 92 “The new institution of one-party rule and the new dynamic of social upheaval, which is directed from above according to a given ideology, are mutually dependent: both can serve as a definition of totalitarianism, because in this regime the revolutionary process itself has become an institution ”.76 With this he placed himself in conscious opposition to Arendt or Friedrich and Brzeziński. If Löwenthal's definition assumed that the Soviet regime had had totalitarian institutions since 1921 and was carrying out a totalitarian revolution, Arendt's definition restricted the phase of Soviet totalitarianism to the height of the Stalinist terror (1937-1953), since this characteristic is constitutive for its definition 77 Friedrich / Brzeziński tried - like Löwenthal - to extend the time frame of (Soviet) totalitarianism: Their “more ideally constructed typology model” with six “groups of characteristics” (1. state ideology with chiliastic demands, 2. monolithic one-party regime , 3rd terror system, 4th information monopoly, 5th weapons monopoly, 6th state-controlled economy) had to be "readjusted" several times due to the changed Soviet development; the inner dynamics were largely ignored.78 A look at The Totalitarian Revolutions of our Time and The totalitarian dictatorship shows that Löwenthal was not free from construction attempts either. While he had previously only called the phase of the Nazi conquest of power as a “revolution”, he now tried to assign the dictatorship as a whole to his paradigm of the “permanent revolution from above”. He had already indicated such an ideal-typical addition in his study Totalitarian and Democratic Revolution when he attested to the "Nazi revolution" that it pursued the "same tendency towards eternal self-movement." 79 In 1966 he then emphasized that the Bolsheviks strived for their "ideological-utopian" Aim ”for a“ perfect egalitarian order ”, while the National Socialists pursued the“ opposite utopia of a perfect final hierarchical order on a world scale ”. This utopian goal was striven for with “ever new acts of extermination, submission, political expansion, eugenic selection”. The corresponding conception of history runs as follows: 76 Löwenthal 1974, p. 364. 77 On Löwenthal's criticism of this temporal limitation, see Löwenthal 1974, p. 361. 78 Cf. Friedrich / Brzeziński 1974, p. 610f .; see Schmeitzner, introduction. In: Schmeitzner 2009, p. 53. 79 Löwenthal 1974, p. 369. 93 “State of innocence - (primordial communism, original racial unity) [...] Fall of Man (emergence of class society, analysis of racial mixing) [...] final stage of the millennial empire ( End communism, restoration of the hierarchical order of the world) ”. 80 Although at this time he was committed to the“ program of a total transformation of society ”both the“ liquidation ”of five million kulaks under Stalin and the“ extermination of six million defenseless Jews ”under Hitler 81 and later assumed an imitation of the Bolshevik totalitarian strategy mediated through Italian fascism by Hitler, 82 he was not ready to accept the thesis of his FU colleague Ernst Nolte of the "causal nexus" between National Socialist and Soviet annihilation practices. The “atrocities of Hitler” cannot be explained “from the atrocities of Stalin”, so the Nazi extermination of Jews cannot be regarded as a “copy” of Soviet mass exterminations.For Hitler, the Jew “remained the real original devil [...] - with or without a Soviet variant.” 83 Nevertheless, the question remains whether the process of the extermination of the Jews in Germany can be classified under the paradigm of the “permanent revolution from above”, and whether the term “total social revolution” so obviously “derived from the phenomenon of Stalinism” is not “too narrowly defined” and thereby “does justice” to this “specific understanding of the revolution” at all.84 The tense relationship between the institutions was also critically questioned the one-party dictatorship (ie the “total state” described since 1935) and the “totalitarian revolution” as a dynamic phenomenon fixed on a utopian end goal. Jänicke had considered the “conceptual bracing” of both phenomena to be “inexpedient”, as the “monopoly 'institutions' would be subject to a process of 'institutional decay' under the effect of the 'totalitarian revolution'” .85 However, at 80 Löwenthal 1966, pp. 204-207; see also Schmeitzner, introduction. In: Schmeitzner 2009, p. 55. 81 Löwenthal 1965, quoted in Schmeitzner 2009, p. 532. The corresponding chapter is entitled “The Prospects of Totalitarian Revolutions”, pp. 531-538. 82 Cf. Löwenthal 1983, p. 71. What is meant here is above all the conquest of power “from below and above”, which Mussolini himself linked “from below” with that “from above” with a view to Lenin's strategy “from below”. 83 Der Tagesspiegel of April 28, 1987: “Awareness of greatness and crime. Professor Richard Löwenthal on dealing with German history in West and East ”; Löwenthal 1987, quoted from Schmeitzner 2009, pp. 633-644, here pp. 642f. 84 Jänicke 1971, p. 215. 85 Jänicke 1971, p. 214f. 94 view of Stalin's policy of terrorizing his own party (1937-1940) can only be partially confirmed, since such a policy did not ultimately imply dissolution, but rather a change in the apparatus, as Jörg Baberowski was recently able to show.86 Jänicke was also, who explained on the basis of Löwenthal's study The totalitarian dictatorship that he “recently decided expressly in favor of the 'totalitarian institutions of the one-party state'”. For him, the “permanent revolution” is only a “secondary factor”, which he tried to substantiate with the following analysis by Löwenthal of recent Eastern European developments: “The dynamic of totalitarianism has largely died down, the fundamental institutions of totalitarianism continue to exist.” 87 In this study, Löwenthal actually described his "syndrome of institutions of the totalitarian political order" (party monopoly with initiative monopoly at the top, organizational monopoly, information monopoly and the absence of legal restrictions on state authority) for the first time since 1960 before the conceptual development of his "totalitarian revolution" can be ranked, using this “syndrome” to focus only once more on the premises of the “total state” mentioned since 1935. A weighting in the sense of Jänicke was not connected with it - on the contrary: In this article and in the "Addendum" (1966) on totalitarian and democratic revolution he already indicated that it was precisely this extinction of the totalitarian dynamic for the definition of the Soviet System would have significant consequences. Because the continued existence of totalitarian institutions with the simultaneous “tendency towards bureaucratic-conservative rigidification” under Brezhnev no longer legitimizes the term totalitarian. For the first time in Soviet history, the “unplanned social evolution 'from below'” has proven to be “stronger than the planned revolution from above” .88 From now on, the Soviet Union must be understood as “post-totalitarian” or “authoritarian ”.89 The extinction of the totalitarian dynamic ultimately leads “in one form or another to an institutional system change”; 90 d. H. the “total 86 See Baberowski 2012, pp. 212-368. Although the respective chapter headings refer to the “destruction of the party” and the “self-destruction of the state apparatus”, Baberowski ultimately describes the terrorization and reshaping of institutions during the Great Terror. 87 Jänicke 1971, p. 213. 88 Löwenthal 1974, addendum 1966, p. 380f. Löwenthal had linked the failure of a revolution from above to the failure of the upheavals in the countryside that Khrushchev wanted (increase in the proportion of state property, creation of "agricultural towns"). 89 Löwenthal 1970, quoted from Schmeitzner 2009, pp. 567-596, here pp. 595f. 90 Löwenthal 1974, addendum 1966, p. 381. 95 State “crumbles almost naturally as a result of the lack of dynamism and the legitimacy problems that result from it. With this thesis, Löwenthal not only anticipated the Soviet development under Gorbachev, but after 1970 he also encouraged key representatives of the scientific community (for example, Juan J. Linz) to conduct further research.91 Literature Richard Löwenthal [Paul Sering] Sering, Paul , 1935a: The Changes in Capitalism. In: Zeitschrift für Sozialismus 2, No. 22/23, pp. 704-725. Sering, Paul, 1935b: Fascism. Part 1: Requirements and funding. In: Zeitschrift für Sozialismus 2, No. 24/25, pp. 765-787. Sering, Paul, 1935c: Fascism. 2nd part: system and contradictions. In: Zeitschrift für Sozialismus 2, No. 26/27, pp. 839-856. Sering, Paul, 1936: Historical requirements of the German National Socialism. In: Zeitschrift für Sozialismus 3, No. 30, pp. 959-975. Sering, Paul, 1939: Twenty Years of the Communist International. Part 2. In: The Socialist Struggle, No. 6 of March 25, 1939, pp. 133-135. Sering, Paul, 1947: Beyond Capitalism. A contribution to the socialist reorientation, Lauf bei Nürnberg. Sering, Paul, 1948: Beyond Capitalism. A contribution to the socialist reorientation, Nuremberg (reprint Bonn 1977). Lowenthal, Richard, 1957a: Hell on Earth. Despotism in the twentieth century. In: The Month 9, H. 105, P. 3-8. Lowenthal, Richard, 1957b: Party vs. State. The Permanent Revolution is on again. In: Problems of Communism VI, H. 5, Sept-Oct, pp. 1-7. Lowenthal, Richard, 1958: Ideology and Realpolitik. Do the Kremlin rulers believe in dogmas? In: The Month 10, H. 117, P. 37-46. Lowenthal, Richard, 1962: Messianism, Nihilism and the Future. In: Jelenski, K. A. (Ed.), History and Hope. Progress in Freedom. The Berlin Conference of 1960. London, pp. 37-57. Löwenthal, Richard, 1965: The Totalitarian Revolutions of our Time. Manuscript written for the series The 1965 Keynote Lectures, broadcast on Radio Free Europe. Löwenthal, Richard, 1966: The totalitarian dictatorship. In: Contemporary Studies. Journal for Economy and School 15, pp. 199-211. Löwenthal, Richard, 1970: Development versus Utopia. The communist dilemma. In: The Month 22, H. 266, P. 60-84. 91 Cf. Linz 2000. 96 Löwenthal, Richard, 1974: Totalitarian and democratic revolution. In: Seidel, Bruno / Jenkner, Siegfried (ed.), Ways of Totalitarism Research, 3rd Edition Darmstadt, pp. 359-381. Löwenthal, Richard, 1977: After 30 years. Introduction to the new edition 1977. In: Löwenthal, Richard: Jenseits des Kapitalismus. A contribution to the socialist reorientation with a detailed introduction "After 30 years". Berlin / Bonn-Bad Godesberg, pp. XIII-LVII. Löwenthal, Richard, 1983: The National Socialist "seizure of power" - a revolution? Your place among the totalitarian revolutions of our century. In: Broszat 1983, pp. 42-74. Löwenthal, Richard / von zur Mühlen, Patrick (Ed.), 1990 [1981]: Resistance and Denial in Germany 1933-1945. Bonn. Löwenthal, Richard, 1987: Two Pasts That Should Not Be Merged - An Answer to Ernst Nolte. In: 1986 yearbook of the Berlin Scientific Society, Berlin, pp. 267-277. Löwenthal, Richard, 1989: My home is - the German labor movement. In: Funke, Hajo (ed.), The Other Memory: Conversations with Jewish Scientists. Frankfurt am Main, pp. 402-421. General Baberowski, Jörg, 2012: Scorched Earth. Stalin's rule of violence. Munich. Backes, Uwe, 2007: From Marxism to anti-totalitarianism. Ernst Fraenkel and Richard Löwenthal. In: Schmeitzner 2007, pp. 327-354. Backes, Uwe, 2014: Richard Löwenthal (1908-1991). In: Jesse, Eckhard / Liebold, Sebastian (Eds.), 2014: German Political Scientists - Work and Effect. From Abendroth to Zellentin. Baden-Baden, pp. 511-523. Bavaj, Riccardo, 2010: "Western Cicilization" and the Acceleration of Time. Richard Löwenthal’s Reflections on a Crisis of "the West" in the Aftermath of the Student Revolt of "1968". In: European History Topic Portal, at: (April 16, 2015). Brandt, Willy / Löwenthal, Richard, 1957: Ernst Reuter. A life for freedom. A political biography. Munich. Broszat, Martin et al. (Ed.), 1983: Germany's way into dictatorship. International conference on the National Socialist takeover in the Reichstag building in Berlin. Lectures and discussions. A protocol. Berlin (West). Buchstein, Hubertus, 1995: Paul Sering (alias Richard Löwenthal), Beyond Capitalism (1947). In: Neue Gesellschaft / Frankfurter Hefte 42, no. 6, pp. 538-542. Friedrich, Carl Joachim / Brzeziński, Zbigniew, 1974: The general characteristics of the totalitarian dictatorship. In: Seidel, Bruno / Jenkner, Siegfried (ed.), Ways of Totalitarism Research, 3rd Edition Darmstadt, pp. 600-617. Jänicke, Martin, 1971: Totalitarian rule. Anatomy of a political concept. Berlin (West). Jones, William David, 1999: The Lost Debate. German Socialist Intellectuals and Totalitarianism. Urbana / Chicago. Kautsky, Karl, 1990 [1921]: From Democracy to State Slavery. In: Democracy or dictatorship ?, Volume 2. Berlin, pp. 175-283. Keßler, Mario, 2011: Criticism of Communism in Western Post-War Germany. Franz Borkenau - Richard Löwenthal - Ossip Flechtheim. Berlin. Linz, Juan J., 2000: Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regime. Berlin. 97 Maier, Hans, 1996: Concepts of the Dictatorship Comparison: “Totalitarianism” and “Political Religions”. In: Ders .: "Totalitarianism" and "Political Religions". Volume 1: Concepts of the dictatorship comparison. Paderborn, pp. 233-250. Möll, Marc-Pierre, 1998: Society and totalitarian order. A theoretical-historical examination of totalitarianism. Baden-Baden. Neumann, Sigmund, 2013 [1942]: Permanent Revolution. Totalitarianism in the Age of International Civil War. Berlin. O. A., 1945: History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks). Short course. Moscow. Schlangen, Walter, 1976: The totalitarianism theory. Development and problems. Stuttgart. Schmeitzner, Mike (Ed.), 2007: Criticism of totalitarianism from the left. German Discourses in the 20th Century. Goettingen. Schmeitzner, Mike (ed.), 2009: Richard Löwenthal: Faschismus - Bolschewismus - Totalitarismus. Writings on Weltanschauung dictatorship in the 20th century. Goettingen. Schmeitzner, Mike, 2012: A totalitarian revolution? Richard Löwenthal and the Weltanschauung dictatorships of the 20th century. Bonn. Schmeitzner, Mike, 2013: “Reread”: Paul Sering, Beyond Capitalism. In: Yearbook Extremism & Democracy 25. Baden-Baden, pp. 279-283. Schmidt, Helmut, 1996: Companions. Memories and reflections. Berlin. Schmidt, Oliver, 2007: "My home is - the German labor movement". Biographical studies on Richard Löwenthal in the transition from exile to the early Federal Republic. Frankfurt am Main. Schmiechen-Ackermann, Detlef, 2002: Dictatorships in Comparison. Darmstadt. Sutor, Bernhard, 1985: Totalitarian dictatorship. A new type of rule in the conflict of interpretations. Stuttgart. Tent, James F., 1988: Free University of Berlin 1948-1988. A German university in current affairs. Berlin (West). Wehrs, Nicolai, 2014: Protest of the professors. The “Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft” in the 1970s. Goettingen.