Inverted Totalitarianism

While the Nazi totalitarianism strove to give the masses a sense of collective power and strength, Kraft durch Freude (“Strength through joy”), inverted totalitarianism promotes a sense of weakness, of collective futility. While the Nazis wanted a continuously mobilized society that would not only support the regime without complaint and enthusiastically vote “yes” at the periodic plebiscites, inverted totalitarianism wants a politically demobilized society that hardly votes at all. Recall the President’s words immediately after the horrendous events of September 11: “Unite, consume and fly,” he told the anxious citizenry. Having assimilated terrorism to a “war,” he avoided doing what democratic leaders customarily do during wartime: mobilize the citizenry, warn it of impending sacrifices and exhort all citizens to join the “war effort.”

I believe that this paragraph spoke about the generalized concept of totalitarianism and how it was used regarding the Nazi. It also compared the action America took after September 11 and how it's forms and ways were very direct and demanding. Action was made right away in a firm form. These techniques represent control over people. When control and action is taken it may cause individuals to make certain actions even when they do not agree with the decisions that are being made.

I chose this paragraph because the text decided to give examples of totalitarianism. The two example showed different way in which people can take control of other people or how the government can take control of their country. War seem to always start because of peoples actions. I believe that everyone may not agree with their leader, or president but follow the law in order to avoid problems. This is a great concern because groups of people, like I've said in other texts, may influence an individual to do something they may not want to do.

Olson

What is significant in this quotation is not the neglect of the fact that monopolistic and imperfect competition alike are in fact based on assumptions fully as individualistic as perfect competition, but rather the belief that group interests and group behavior are the primary forces in economic as well as in political behavior. The essence of this tradition in political science seems to be that one looks to group interests rather than to individual interests to see the basic forces at work in both the economy and the polity. For Commons and Latham alike, group interests are dominant, individual interests secondary.

I believe this paragraph is talking about politics and the work they do within a group. Working within a group consist of opinions, behavior and certain pressure. Working together brings unity and having group ideas as is believing in one thing. Having the group interest brings dominance to the politics but having one's thought is left as secondary. It seems as if this has been a traditional action that helps the group work together in bringing the economy to a better place.

I chose this paragraph because I can see how the pressure of a group coming to an understanding may bring one's belief and interest down. Sometimes if a group decision is persistent and strong some people may hold back their own personal opinion and agree with the group. When it comes to the political system I do question their decision; will this really bring a positive outcome in any economical decision that is made?