This article was downloaded by: [Fac Psicologia/Biblioteca]

On: 07 July 2012, At: 02:43

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Totalitarian Movements and Political
Religions
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ftmp20
Historiographical Perspectives on Mass
Dictatorship
JieHyun Lim
a
a
Hanyang University
Version of record first published: 08 Aug 2006
To cite this article: JieHyun Lim (2005): Historiographical Perspectives on Mass Dictatorship,
Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, 6:3, 325-331
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14690760500317669
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions,
Vol. 6, No. 3, 325331, December 2005
ISSN 1469-0764 Print/1743-9647 Online/05/030325-07 2005 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14690760500317669
Historiographical Perspectives on Mass Dictatorship
JIE-HYUN LIM
Hanyang University
Taylor and Francis Ltd FTMP_A_131749.sgm 10.1080/14690760500317669 Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 1469-0764 (print)/1743-9647 (online) Original Article 2005 Taylor & Francis 63000000Winter 2005 Jie-hyunLim Dept. of HistoryHanyang UniversitySeoul 133-791Korea jiehyun@hanyang.ac.kr
Mass dictatorship as a working hypothesis starts from a simple question: what is
the difference between pre-modern despotism and modern dictatorship? My
tentative answer is that despotism does not need massive backing from below,
but modern dictatorship presupposes the support of the masses. Even in so
condensed a form, the question and answer already suffice to free us from demo-
nological discourses, be they right- or left-wing. They put a question mark behind
the usefulness of both the totalitarian and Marxist paradigms, obsessed as they
are with a dualist approach which asserts that there were few perpetrators (the
dictator and his cronies) and many victims (the people). Originating in the politi-
cal rectitude each of its own camp, both dualist paradigms suffered from the
same inability to capture the key dynamics of modern dictatorships with their
rootedness in diverse forms of popular support. The diabolic presentism of the
Cold War made them blind to the broad popular support for the dictatorships to
which they were politically opposed. It set us, the innocent victims, against
them, the vicious perpetrators, and so produced nothing but ideological clichs.
A historicisation suspended temporarily from political commitment casts serious
doubt on that moralist, ideologically clich-ridden saga common to totalitarian
and Marxist paradigms.
1
I will return to the post-totalitarian presentism of mass
dictatorship below.
The term mass dictatorship implies the mobilisation of the masses by dictator-
ships and frequently voluntary mass participation in and support for dictatorial
regimes. Its historical appearance coincided with the replacement of the dominance
of a liberal Brgertum of property and cultivation by mass participatory politics
and societies in the early twentieth century. Increasing urbanisation and labour
organisation opened the door to mass society. Once mass movements had appeared
on the scene, voices of ordinary people could no longer be silenced or disregarded
by any regime, whether democratic or dictatorial. Rather, the socio-political engi-
neers of the modern state system were desperate to recruit and mobilise the masses
for the nation-state project, and thus demanded their enthusiasm and voluntary
participation. The historical experience of total war systematically demonstrated
the vital importance to the modern state project of the voluntary mobilisation and
participation of the masses. The liberal-constitutional state was to be replaced by
an emergent interventionist state, whether parliamentary-democratic or dictatorial
Correspondence Address: Jie-Hyun Lim, Department of History, Hanyang University, Seoul, 133-791,
Korea. Email: jiehyun@hanyang.ac.kr
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
F
a
c

P
s
i
c
o
l
o
g
i
a
/
B
i
b
l
i
o
t
e
c
a
]

a
t

0
2
:
4
3

0
7

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
2

326 J.-H. Lim
in its form. That helps explain why a modern state system of universal suffrage,
plebiscite in acclamation compulsory education, nationalisation of the masses
universal conscription, national appellation and social welfare-social bribery was
adopted not only by democracies but also by dictatorships. It is at this moment that
dictatorship from above transforms itself into dictatorship from below. Alexis de
Tocquevilles term tyranny through masses captures its essence. In short, mass
dictatorship is dictatorship appropriating modern statecraft, and is far from being
an inevitable product of deviation from a normal path to modernity, or of moder-
nity deformed by the presence within it of residues of the pre-modern.
2
Consideration of modern socio-political engineering leads us to postulate that
violence, coercion and other means of repression may prove counterproductive
because they discourage and dampen the enthusiasm of those who would other-
wise support the regime. The slow but relentless build-up of pressure on the indi-
vidual to conform is much more efficient and cost effective than any means of
terror. Presumably any regimes most favoured mode of ruling/subjection is the
internal coercion produced by structuring thought and feeling.
3
When coercion
is successfully internalised by the oppressed, it soon develops into an inner belief
concealing oppression from the oppressed. The success of a mass dictatorship
would depend on its ability to involve people in the ritual of legitimacy and make
them surrender their own identity and subjectivity in favour of conformity to the
model of a subject manufactured by the regime. A modern subject, whether in
totalitarian or in democratic regimes, stood not on the individual autonomous
will but on the process of controlled and guided massification.
4
The slogan, very
loudly proclaimed by Italian Fascism and by Stalinism, of the new man who was
to be created by an anthropological revolution, should be understood in this
context. Neither of these two kinds of regime reached perfection, but both had
been driven by an unstinting effort to perform that revolution.
5
It was the
modernist utopian ambition of social engineering to transform the feminised and
disarmed people into the perfect men. In other words it meant a change from
revolutionary mass movements to institutionalised mass politics.
If the consent of high Stalinism was fed by the fever of anthropological revolu-
tion, post-Stalinist regimes depended on shared guilt or public complicity for
mass consent. As a dissenting witness to actually existing Socialism, Vaclav
Havel adumbrated the peculiar mass psychology of public complicity or shared
guilt in his thesis of post-totalitarianism.
6
The large scale of public complicity
was bound in time to create conformity, especially in and after the era of de-
Stalinisation. When the post-Stalinist regime abandoned the totalitarian effort of
anthropological revolution to create a new man, it ceased to dominate private
lives and tolerated peoples cynicism despite the official medias deploring
peoples passivity and indifference. Generally speaking, East European people in
the post-1956 era just adapted themselves to the system, without enthusiasm and
without volunteering for the state project, and the regime was obliged to rest
content with such merely passive consent. While communist regimes continued
to involve masses in ritual performances of compliance, they could not and did
not expect ideological commitment from the masses. The heritage of Marxist
ideas was reduced to a handful of empty and decontextualised slogans, and
peoples passive consent to this fossilised Marxism was compensated for by
material rewards. It is in this context that Andrzej Walicki identified the de-
Stalinisation of 1956 as a turning point from totalitarianism to authoritarianism.
7
It is noteworthy too that Francoism is often defined as despotismo moderno
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
F
a
c

P
s
i
c
o
l
o
g
i
a
/
B
i
b
l
i
o
t
e
c
a
]

a
t

0
2
:
4
3

0
7

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
2

Historiographical Perspectives on Mass Dictatorship 327
(modern despotism) because it constitutes an alliance of conservatives and the
military without mass involvement. Modern despotism of this kind differs from
mass dictatorship in that it does not rely on the mobilisation of the masses or on
intervention in their private lives.
8
To take mass dictatorship as a working hypothesis is to imply re-engagement
with Antonio Gramsci. His problematique of hegemony can play a pivotal part in
explaining voluntary mass mobilisation. Contrary to a common belief that his
concept of hegemony is confined to an analysis of liberal democratic regimes, Gram-
sci explicitly wrote that fascism represents a war of position.
9
His intuition was
that fascism was entrenched solidly at a grassroots level. Gramscis grave concern
about fascist hegemony chimes with Mussolinis keen interest in general economic
mobilisation of citizens as means and agents of production, real conscription, a real
civic and economic recruitment of all Italians. Under the scrutiny of the concept of
hegemony, the organisation of consent cannot be equated simply with the mould-
ing of public opinion. The popular consensus was not just a product of state terror
and all-pervasive propaganda. Mussolinis complaint about unstable consent
indicates that fascism was no exception among state initiatives taking root in the
masses. What concerned Mussolini most was building a capillary network of asso-
ciations with vast powers of social and cultural persuasion.
10
It was necessary for
Nazis to buy off the workers by making social and welfare concessions, as Peukert
put it,
11
but it was not sufficient. Mass dictatorship is not only a hard power utterly
dominating the political sphere, but also a soft power, retuning the civil society to
its own normative key. What one cannot fail to notice in mass dictatorship is a
remarkable degree of popularity articulated through the channels of plebiscitary
acclamation which served to legitimise the regime. Dictatorship of consent or
consensus dictatorship is one of the characteristics of mass dictatorship.
12
Fascist hegemony, entrenched in the grassroots, often penetrates into the private
sphere of individuals. As shown in its pursuit of anthropological revolution, it tries
to maximise the hegemonic effect by infiltrating the praxis of everyday life and
thus consolidating the fascist habitus. Comparable to Louis Althussers concept of
appellation, Michel Foucaults analysis of the modern subject not as autonomous
but as tailor-made can be very suggestive for our understanding of the formation
of the fascist habitus and of the process of internalising coercion.
13
Like all other
modern regimes, mass dictatorship tries to legitimise its political application to
multiple arrays of medical, legal, administrative and juridical instruments. What
distinguishes mass dictatorship from other modern regimes is the extreme in
which it achieves paroxysmal perpetration. Mass dictatorship shared with these
similar mechanisms of the modern nation state for constructing the image of a
people of unitary will and action. It made the non-conforming insiders as Others,
and then appropriated hegemonically the rest of the population in the name of a
nations will. The Nazis slogan of the Volksgemeinschaft the national and racial
community is a good example, symbolic of the organic integration which
transcended class and political divisions achieved by making Others through
anti-Semitism, anti-Bolshevism and anti-Westernism outwardly, and by inventing
a new ethnic unity of the Arian race inwardly.
State racism is an effective means of creating biologised internal or interna-
tional enemies, against whom society must defend itself. Here, Michel Foucaults
concept of a biopower based on the triangular relationship between biopolitics,
population and race is very suggestive. If disciplinary society constructs a
capillary network of apparatuses to produce and regulate customs, habits and
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
F
a
c

P
s
i
c
o
l
o
g
i
a
/
B
i
b
l
i
o
t
e
c
a
]

a
t

0
2
:
4
3

0
7

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
2

328 J.-H. Lim
productive practices, biopower regulates social life from its interior. Power can
achieve an effective command over the entire life of the population at the birth of
biopower.
14
One cannot say if mass dictatorship did attain perfection of the
biopower, but it might have the productive dimension of biopower for the
modern disciplinary state. Perhaps it did not fulfil the anthropological revolution
to create a new man, but it never abandoned the modernist utopian dream of the
society of control. The fascist aesthetics of the beautiful male body may indicate
the dimension of the biopolitics in mass dictatorship, which formed a bridge
between the public and private sphere. And what the history of sexuality shows is
that the masses hinged on the means of controlling passions and ideals of human
beauty, love, friendship and sexual habitus more than Foucault supposed.
15
The intellectual history of popular sovereignty is congruent with the tracks of
mass dictatorship. Carl Schmitts advocacy of Nazism as an anti-liberal but not
necessarily anti-democratic regime represents the climax of a new politics
based on the idea of popular sovereignty.
16
Popular sovereignty transformed
populations from passive subjects into active citizens and thus paved the way
for participatory dictatorship. Once the general will is hoaxed into the will of
the nation, as the constituent power it is not subject to a constitution and has
the legislative power to make constitutions. This reveals the secret of sovereign
dictatorship: its justification by the logical chain of representation with the
people representing the multitude, the nation representing the people, and the
state representing the nation. In this way the multitude was transformed into an
ordered totality.
17
Indeed, a sovereign dictatorship based on the general will as
its constituent power could enjoy unlimited constitutional power without any
legitimacy complex. Seen in this light, George Mosses eccentric assumption that
Robespierre would have felt at home at the Nazis mass meetings is not ground-
less at all.
18
In his address to the National Convention (1793), Barre could justify
Jacobin dictatorship on the grounds that the nation was exercising dictatorship
over itself.
Sovereign dictatorship provides a conceptual clue also to understanding the
ironic conundrum of an affinity between generic fascism and Stalinism. The
clich that the two extremes meet explains nothing. However, Hardt and
Negris suggestion that the abstract machine of national sovereignty is at the
heart of both seems to have a point.
19
Even for the Left, national community
meant a working peoples unity against the peoples enemy.
20
When German
revanchists argued for a common front with Soviet Russia against the West,
Karl Radek proposed co-operation with the German National Socialists against
the West. It was resonant with Stalins thought of Nazism as the anti-capitalist
populist nationalism. Italian left fascists like Berto Ricci and Ugo Spirito were
pleased to see the Soviet Union inclining toward fascism with its shift of empha-
sis from revolutionary internationalism to nationalist development.
21
The Italian
fascists dichotomy, of bourgeois nation and proletarian nation, was to be
reiterated in post-war Third World Marxists dependency theory. This
announced a shift from class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat, to
national struggle between rich nation and poor nation. Both fascism and Stalin-
ism laid stress on a developmental strategy to catch up with and overtake
advanced capitalism at all cost, and justified it by resorting to the nations will.
22
In this context, sovereign dictatorship, a sub-variant of mass dictatorship,
confirms Roger Griffins working definition of generic fascism as palingenetic
populist ultra-nationalism.
23
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
F
a
c

P
s
i
c
o
l
o
g
i
a
/
B
i
b
l
i
o
t
e
c
a
]

a
t

0
2
:
4
3

0
7

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
2

Historiographical Perspectives on Mass Dictatorship 329
Once situated within a broader socio-cultural history, popular sovereignty
supports ideologically the nationalisation of the masses.
24
This way of massifica-
tion corresponds with Hannah Arendts mention of equalisation under all circum-
stances and Daniel Seligmans term of homogenisation.
25
The nationalised
masses as a tailor-made totality, assisted by fascist spectacles, deny the liberal
image of an autonomous modern subject. Its proponents heil-ed that the
disenchanted modern subject should be well tailored to the will of the nation state,
which they justified in reference to a nations will. But ideological justification is
not enough to make people internalise norms and disciplines in everyday life.
Popular sovereignty is too abstract to discipline people through biopower. What is
needed beyond the abstract level is the anthropo-cultural re-enchantment to
produce a tailor-made subject. It is political religion, or the sacralisation of poli-
tics to use Emilio Gentiles phrase, that satisfied the demand for re-enchantment
by conferring a sacred status on earthly entities like nation, state, history and race
and rendering them into absolute principles of collective identity.
26
If most people
embodied the fascist message via fascist aesthetics, it was nationalism that re-
enchanted people by transforming politics into a political religion. The national
narrative of a collective life flowing from the immemorial past into an infinite
future could turn the mortal life of the individual into the eternal life of the
collective, and thus fill the vacuum caused by the extinction of the mythic.
The emphasis on consensus and hegemonic effects in mass dictatorship never
denies violence, terror, repression and coercion. Rather, it raises the question as to
why a large part of the population ignores or even endorses the horrors of
extreme coercion employed by repressive regimes such as the Nazis in Germany.
The upshot is that terror was an indispensable means of creating consent, appeal-
ing not only to fear but also to a feeling of relief among national comrades.
Terror was used very selectively and was initially aimed at enemies of the
people. Mass dictatorship deployed massive terror in a sort of radical strategy of
negative integration, provoking violence against Others in order to integrate
heterogeneous mass into our national community. Terror and coercion created
chaos and fear among outcasts, but it never involved danger to faithful insiders. It
is not the terror itself, but the fear of being outcast that was the greater threat to
the greater number. That explains why ordinary people became readily active
perpetrators or passive bystanders, and why even extreme terror could count on
consent from below.
27
Thus, coercion and consent should be seen not as polar
opposites, but as intimately interwoven integral parts of mass dictatorship. Mass
dictatorship was indeed Janus-faced: Jeykill to insiders and Hyde to outcasts.
Mass dictatorship may look like a behemoth a perfect, tightly sutured politi-
cal machine, which does not allow even a tiny space for dissent and resistance. A
seemingly one-sided emphasis on consent or consensus may give the impression
that mass dictatorship causes one to avert ones eyes from the apparent terror.
The mass dictatorship paradigm never intends to do that. Rather, its underlying
assumption is that consent itself is a multi-layered experience, spanning interna-
lised coercion, forced consent, passive conformity, voluntary consensus and so
on. Ultimately, the tasks awaiting historians of mass dictatorship include the
deconstruction and pluralisation of terms such as consent and consensus. Like-
wise resistance can be divided into Resistenz and Widerstand, ideologically
driven resistance and existentialist resistance, resistance built in hegemony
and domination pregnant with resistance.
28
This task would prove more than
unusually complex because it would involve crossing the line between perceived
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
F
a
c

P
s
i
c
o
l
o
g
i
a
/
B
i
b
l
i
o
t
e
c
a
]

a
t

0
2
:
4
3

0
7

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
2

330 J.-H. Lim
reality and objective reality. Ordinary peoples reception of mass dictatorship is
bound up with a transformation not only of objective, but also of perceived real-
ity. Very often, it is not the reality itself, but the interpreted reality that shapes the
thoughts and practice of people in their everyday lives. Once entrenched in the
peoples perceived reality, consensus and legitimacy go beyond an elaborate
hoax, and mass dictatorship becomes a reality.
In Korea, the memory war over the past of Park Chung Hees development
dictatorship spawned a problematic consciousness of mass dictatorship. The
allure of nostalgia for Parks era has been seriously embarrassing to left-wing
intellectuals who never expected such a phenomenon in democratised Korea. But
reflection on the history of coming to terms with past in post-war Germany and
Italy and, more recently, in former actually existing Socialist countries tells us in
whispers that this is not a Korean peculiarity, but a widespread historical
occurrence. Far from being wiped out, the fascist mentality continued to mark
national life after de-Fascistisation in Italy. Nazism was remembered after the
Second World War not, or not only, for terror and mass murder, but also for the
economic boom, tranquillity and order it brought to the greater part of German
population. Adam Michniks stance, represented by his slogan of amnesty yes,
amnesia no, and Vaclav Havels way of coming to terms with the communist
past seem to point out this ironic aspect of the post-communism.
29
The moral
dualism of both totalitarian and Marxist paradigms facilitates the displacement of
the historical responsibility of the ordinary people by shifting culpability away
from them, and is thus losing a war of memory. Despite fascisms having lost a
war of manoeuvre, it is still scoring victories in a war of position. Umberto
Ecos warning about fuzzy totalitarianism and endless fascism and Felix
Guattaris caution against recurrent fascism imply that a war of position
against fascism is still in progress.
30
The historicism of mass dictatorship turns
itself into a presentism on this front.
Notes
1. Jie-Hyun Lim, Mapping Mass Dictatorship, in Jie-Hyun Lim and Yong-Woo Kim (eds.), Daejung
Dokjai: Gangjewa Dongui Saieso (Mass Dictatorship Between Coercion and Consensus) (Seoul:
Chaiksesang, 2004), pp.1755.
2. In this context, the mass dictatorship paradigm is congruent with the criticism of the Sonderweg
thesis; see David Blackbourn and Geoff Eley, The Peculiarities of German History (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1984); Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust (Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 2000).
3. Patrick Colm Hogan, The Culture of Conformism: Understanding Social Consent (Durham, NC: Duke
University Press, 2001), p.58.
4. Georgi Schischkoff, Die gesteuerte Vermassung (Meisenheim am Glan: Anton Hain, 1964), pp.12021.
5. Leszek Kolakowski, Totalitarianism and the Virtue of the Lie, in Irving Howe (ed.), 1984 Revis-
ited: Totalitarianism in Our Century (New York: Harper Collins, 1983), p.133.
6. Vaclav Havel, The Power of the Powerless, in John Keane (ed.), The Power of the Powerless: Citizens
Against the State in Central-Eastern Europe (London: Hutchinson, 1985).
7. Andrzej Walicki, Polskie zmagania z wolnoscia (Krakw: Universitas, 2000), pp.1029.
8. Salvador Giner, Political Economy, Legitimacy and the State in Southern Europe, in Ray Hudson
and Jim Lewis (eds.), Uneven Developments in Southern Europe (London: Methuen, 1985).
9. Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, ed. and trans. Q. Hoare and Geoffrey N.
Smith (New York: International Publishers, 1971), p.120.
10. Victoria de Grazia, The Culture of Consent: Mass Organization of Leisure in Fascist Italy (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1981), pp.12, 212 and passim.
11. Detlev J.K. Peukert, Inside Nazi Germany: Conformity, Opposition, and Racism in Everyday Life, trans.
R. Deveson (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987), p.31.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
F
a
c

P
s
i
c
o
l
o
g
i
a
/
B
i
b
l
i
o
t
e
c
a
]

a
t

0
2
:
4
3

0
7

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
2

Historiographical Perspectives on Mass Dictatorship 331
12. The term consensus dictatorship is found in Martin Sabrow, Dictatorship as Discourse: Cultural
Perspectives on SED Legitimacy, in Konrad H. Jarausch (ed.), Dictatorship as Experience: Towards a
Socio-Cultural History of the GDR (New York: Berghahn Books, 1999), p.208.
13. [ Zcar on] i[ zc ar on] eks suggestion to read Havel with Althusser may be altered to the suggestion that one might
read Havel with Althusser, Foucault and Gramsci in the context of mass dictatorship studies. See
Slavoj [ Zc ar on] i[ zc ar on] ek, Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism? (London: Verso, 2001), p.90.
14. Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Vintage, 1978), Vol.I,
pp.13545; Michel Foucault, The Politics of Health in the Eighteenth Century, in Colin Gordon
(ed.), Power/Knowledge (New York: Pantheon, 1980), pp.16682.
15. George L. Mosse, The Fascist Revolution (New York: Howard Fetig, 1999), p.48; George L. Mosse,
Nationalism and Sexuality (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), pp.212.
16. Carl Schmitt, Der Gegensatz von Parlamentarismus und moderner Massendemokratie, Korean
trans. H.J. Kim (Seoul: Bupmunsa, 1988), p.102.
17. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000),
pp.87, 134. It is very interesting that Hardt and Negris sharp criticism of the sovereign machine
and Schmitts ardent advocacy of sovereign dictatorship stand on the same historical ground of
the formation of the modern sovereign state.
18. Mosse, The Fascist Revolution (note 15), p.76.
19. Hardt and Negri (note 17), p.112.
20. It is noteworthy in this regard that the organic concept of nation and ethnicity had been prevalent
in actually existing socialist states. See Jie-Hyun Lim, The Nationalist Message in Socialist Code:
On Court Historiography in Peoples Poland and North Korea, in Slvi Sogner (ed.), Making Sense
of Global History (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 2001).
21. Stanley G. Payne, Fascism and Communism, Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 1/3
(Winter 2000), pp.47.
22. Jie-Hyun Lim, Befreiung oder Modernisierung? Sozialismus als ein Weg der anti-westlichen
Moderniseirung in unterentwickelten Laendern, Beitraege zur Geschichte der Arbeiterbewegung 43/2
(2001), pp.523.
23. Roger Griffin, Palingenetic Political Community: Rethinking the Legitimation of Totalitarian
Regimes in Inter-War Europe, Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 3/3 (Winter 2002),
pp.246.
24. George L. Mosse, The Nationalization of the Masses (New York: Howard Fertig, 1975).
25. Salvador Giner, Mass Society (New York: Academic Press, 1976), p.127.
26. Emilio Gentile, The Sacralisation of Politics: Definitions, Interpretations and Reflections on the
Question of Secular Religion and Totalitarianism, Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 1/1
(Summer 2000).
27. See Jarausch (note 12); Robert Gellately, Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001); Robert Mallett, Consent or Dissent? Totalitarian
Movements and Political Religions 1/2 (Autumn 2000).
28. The academic achievements of Alltagsgeschichte are very suggestive in this context; see Alf Luedtke
(ed.), The History of Everyday Life, trans. William Templer (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1995).
29. See Richard Bessel (ed.), Life in the Third Reich (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987); Konrad H.
Jarausch and Michael Geyer, Shattered Past: Reconstructing German Histories (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 2003); R.J.B. Bosworth and Patrizia Dogliani (eds.), Italian Fascism: History, Memory
and Representation (New York: St Martins Press, 1999); A. Kemp Welch (ed.), Stalinism in Poland,
19441956 (London: Macmillan, 1999). Adam Michnik, rozmowa z Vaclavem Havelem Gazeta
Wyborcza November 30, 1991; Timothy Garlton, History of the Present (New York: Vintage Books,
1999).
30. Felix Guattari, Molecular Revolution (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1984), p.229.
Z

z
Z

z
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
F
a
c

P
s
i
c
o
l
o
g
i
a
/
B
i
b
l
i
o
t
e
c
a
]

a
t

0
2
:
4
3

0
7

J
u
l
y

2
0
1
2