“ IT IS ALMOST impossible even now to describe what actually happened in Europe on August 4, 1914. The days before and the days after the first World War are separated not like the end of an old and the beginning of a new period, but like the day before and the day after an explosion.’’

This work focuses on the post WW1 period. Nevertheless, covers the development of European thought after the French Revolution. Uses anti-semitism to illustrate the degrading of human life and loss of human dignity. Detailed analysis of the Dreyfus affair and the role of Disraeli in England. Outstanding!

“Yet this figure of speech is as inaccurate as are all others, because the quiet of sorrow which settles down after a catastrophe has never come to pass. The first explosion seems to have touched off a chain reaction in which we have been caught ever since and which nobody seems to be able to stop. The first World War exploded the European comity of nations beyond repair, something which no other war had ever done.”

The central role of 1914 in history is key in understanding present.

“Inflation destroyed the whole class of small property owners beyond hope for recovery or new formation, something which no monetary crisis had ever done so radically before. Unemployment, when it came, reached fabulous proportions, was no longer restricted to the working class but seized with insignificant exceptions whole nations.’’

Anger and despair.

“Civil wars which ushered in and spread over the twenty years of uneasy peace were not only bloodier and more cruel than all their predecessors; they were followed by migrations of groups who, unlike their happier predecessors in the religious wars, were welcomed nowhere and could be assimilated nowhere. Once they had left their homeland they remained homeless, once they had left their state they became stateless; once they had been deprived of their human rights they were rightless, the scum of the earth.’’

This loss, (denial) of human dignity, personal value, comes up again and again.

“Nothing which was being done, no matter how stupid, no matter how many people knew and foretold the consequences, could be undone or prevented. Every event had the finality of a last judgment, a judgment that was passed neither by God nor by the devil, but looked rather like the expression of some unredeemably stupid fatality.’’

Her bold opinions make this work very interesting!

“Before totalitarian politics consciously attacked and partially destroyed the very structure of European civilization, the explosion of 1914 and its severe consequences of instability had sufficiently shattered the façade of Europe’s political system to lay bare its hidden frame. Such visible exposures were the sufferings of more and more groups of people to whom suddenly the rules of the world around them had ceased to apply.’’

Creating a new world culture, society.

“Hatred, certainly not lacking in the pre-war world, began to play a central role in public affairs everywhere, so that the political scene in the deceptively quiet years of the twenties assumed the sordid and weird atmosphere of a Strindbergian family quarrel.’’

Who can doubt it?

“Nothing perhaps illustrates the general disintegration of political life better than this vague, pervasive hatred of everybody and everything, without a focus for its passionate attention, with nobody to make responsible for the state of affairs—neither the government nor the bourgeoisie nor an outside power. It consequently turned in all directions, haphazardly and unpredictably, incapable of assuming an air of healthy indifference toward anything under the sun.’’

Nobody understands what to do.

Another theme is the misuse of ‘science’. . .

“ Science in the instances of both business publicity and totalitarian propaganda is obviously only a surrogate for power. The obsession of totalitarian movements with “scientific” proofs ceases once they are in power. The Nazis dismissed even those scholars who were willing to serve them, and the Bolsheviks use the reputation of their scientists for entirely unscientific purposes and force them into the role of charlatans.’’

Man, this seems so . . . so . . . current!

“ But there is nothing more to the frequently overrated similarities between mass advertisement and mass propaganda. Businessmen usually do not pose as prophets and they do not constantly demonstrate the correctness of their predictions. The scientificality of totalitarian propaganda is characterized by its almost exclusive insistence on scientific prophecy as distinguished from the more old-fashioned appeal to the past. Nowhere does the ideological origin, of socialism in one instance and racism in the other, show more clearly than when their spokesmen pretend that they have discovered the hidden forces that will bring them good fortune in the chain of fatality.‘’

‘Old fashioned prophecy’ shows how came true in past. This explains the past, more important than understanding future, which can’t be done. She, Jewish scholar, knew this.

“ Totalitarian propaganda raised ideological scientificality [scientism] and its technique of making statements in the form of predictions to a height of efficiency of method and absurdity of content because, demagogically speaking, there is hardly a better way to avoid discussion than by releasing an argument from the control of the present and by saying that only the future can reveal its merits. However, totalitarian ideologies did not invent this procedure, and were not the only ones to use it.’’

How true! Avoid proof by using the future!

“Scientifically of mass propaganda has indeed been so universally employed in modern politics that it has been interpreted as a more general sign of that obsession with science which has characterized the Western world since the rise of mathematics and physics in the sixteenth century; thus totalitarianism appears to be only the last stage in a process during which “science [has become] an idol that will magically cure the evils of existence and transform the nature of man.”

And there was, indeed, an early connection between scientificality and the rise of the masses.

“The “collectivism” of masses was welcomed by those who hoped for the appearance of “natural laws of historical development” which would eliminate the unpredictability of the individual’s actions and behavior. There has been cited the example of Enfantin who could already “see the time approaching when the ‘art of moving the masses’ will be so perfectly developed that the painter, the musician, and the poet will possess the power to please and to move with the same certainty as the mathematician solves a geometrical problem or the chemist analyses any substance,” and it has been concluded that modern propaganda was born then and there.’’

She connects a warped ‘science’ as instrumental in Hitler and Stalin throughout this book.

“ Underlying the Nazis’ belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin’s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human beings, just as under the Bolsheviks’ belief in class-struggle as the expression of the law of history lies Marx’s notion of society as the product of a gigantic historical movement which races according to its own law of motion to the end of historical times when it will abolish itself.’’

What’s the connection of Marx and Darwin?

“The difference between Marx’s historical and Darwin’s naturalistic approach has frequently been pointed out, usually and rightly in favor of Marx. This has led us to forget the great and positive interest Marx took in Darwin’s theories; Engels could not think of a greater compliment to Marx’s scholarly, achievements than to call him the ‘Darwin of history.’”

Engels knew!

“If one considers, not the actual achievement, but the basic philosophies of both men, it turns out that ultimately the movement of history and the movement of nature are one and the same. Darwin’s introduction of the concept of development into nature, his insistence that, at least in the field of biology, natural movement is not circular but unilinear, moving in an infinitely progressing direction, means in fact that nature is, as it were, being swept into history, that natural life is considered to be historical.’’

Now this explains much. Neat!

“The “natural” law of the survival of the fittest is just as much a historical law and could be used as such by racism as Marx’s law of the survival of the most progressive class. Marx’s class struggle, on the other hand, as the driving force of history is only the outward expression of the development of productive forces which in turn have their origin in the “labor-power” of men. Labor, according to Marx, is not a historical but a natural-biological force—released through man’s “metabolism with nature” by which he conserves his individual life and reproduces the species.’’

How significant?

“Engels saw the affinity between the basic convictions of the two men very clearly because he understood the decisive role which the concept of development played in both theories. The tremendous intellectual change which took place in the middle of the last century consisted in the refusal to view or accept anything “as it is” and in the consistent interpretation of everything as being only a stage of some further development.’’

Explains why leftists want to be called ‘progressive’.

Table of contents (linked)

Antisemitism Antisemitism as an Outrage to Common Sense

The Jews, the Nation-State, and the Birth of Antisemitism

The Jews and Society

The Dreyfus Affair

Imperialism

The Political Emancipation of the Bourgeoisie

Race-Thinking Before Racism

Race and Bureaucracy

Continental Imperialism: the Pan Movements

The Decline of the Nation-State and the End of the Rights of Man

Totalitarianism

A Classless Society

The Totalitarian Movement

Totalitarianism in Power

Ideology and Terror: A Novel Form of Government

Another keen insight is the change to rule by ‘experts’. . .

“ Rule by decree has conspicuous advantages for the domination of far-flung territories with heterogeneous populations and for a policy of oppression. Its efficiency is superior simply because it ignores all intermediary stages between issuance and application, and because it prevents political reasoning by the people through the withholding of information.

(Hiding the facts)

“It can easily overcome the variety of local customs and need not rely on the necessarily slow process of development of general law. “

(Ignore moral principles)

“It is most helpful for the establishment of a centralized administration because it overrides automatically all matters of local autonomy.”

(Local insight ignored)

“If rule by good laws has sometimes been called the rule of wisdom, rule by appropriate decrees may rightly be called the rule of cleverness.”

(Clever vs wise)

“For it is clever to reckon with ulterior motives and aims, and it is wise to understand and create by deduction from generally accepted principles.’’

(Right! I know that guy!)

I hope these few slices provide a sense of this historical explanation. And make no mistake, this is an explanation, a narrative, an analysis that grows into a synthesis.

Historical, psychological, philosophical, theological insights — yep, it’s all here. Nevertheless, although erudite, academic, scholarly; is not obtuse, confusing or evasive. Clear, dense, compelling and persuasive. Countless references, detailed analysis of documents, tremendous scholarship!

And even though written over half a century ago, I felt this presentation gave me added insight into current thought that seems to dominate present worldwide society.

Amazing!

Includes three added prefaces from the sixties. These are with the price of this book by themselves!

I listened to the audible version. The reader did outstanding job. Slight English accent, and paused just . . . a little at end of every sentence. This really did help, since this is not light material.

Great!

Thousands of references in bibliography (not linked)

Amazing!

Hundreds of footnotes (linked)

Tremendous!

Extremely detailed index (linked)

Overwhelming!

Anyone wanting explanation, understanding of current political thought, insight into prevalent academic doctrine, discernment of popular movements, can find marvelous explanations here.

In fact, so clear . . . so . . . convincing, that the joy of new understanding might be eclipsed by the sadness of new insight.

Totalitarianism isn’t an easy phenomenon to grasp. One of the most difficult things to understand is how could hundreds of millions of people all over Europe and the Soviet Union have allowed the horrors of the Holocaust and the mass purges to take place. In The Origins of Totalitarianism Hannah Arendt offers one of the best explanations for these mass horrors. “Mass” is the key word here. Arendt’s explanation consists of describing this modern social entity called “the masses,” which she distinguishes from the mob (itself capable of spurts of violence, such as during pogroms) as well as from classes (based on economic self-interest). The masses are a quintessentially totalitarian phenomenon.

Arendt posits that one of the key features of the totalitarian state is its system of indoctrination, propaganda, isolation, intimidation and brainwashing—instigated and supervised by the Secret Police—which transforms classes, or thoughtful individuals able to make relatively sound political decisions, into masses, or people who have been so beaten down that they become apathetic and give their unconditional loyalty to the totalitarian regime.

The masses versus the classes

Unlike social classes, Arendt explains, the masses are amorphous and easily swayed. They’re moved by superficial rhetoric and empty fervor rather than united by a common identity or shared economic interests. According to Arendt, “The term masses applies only when we deal with people who either because of their sheer numbers, or indifference, or a combination of both, cannot be integrated into any organization based on common interest.” (The Origins of Totalitarianism, 311). Of course, this political and social apathy isn’t enough to lend support to totalitarian movements. An additional, and crucial, factor comes into play. The apathetic masses must come under the spell of charismatic evil leaders, like Hitler and Stalin, who gain control over society and kill in them the last vestige of human decency and individualism. If “the masses” don’t exist in sufficient numbers in a given society, then totalitarian rulers create them. This was the main purpose, Arendt contends, of Stalin’s relentless purges, which destroyed any real class identity and ideological conviction. Even the nuclear family and bonds of love deteriorated, as friends feared friends and parents lived under the reasonable fear that their own children could at any moment turn them in for “deviationism” from the party line.

Social groups versus atomized individuals

The masses are vast in number but isolated in nature. Totalitarian society creates an immense collection of atomized individuals. There’s no other way to command an absolute obedience to the regime: even when the government’s policies change radically, demanding one thing of its followers one day and the opposite the next. This unconditional loyalty, Arendt argues, “can be expected only from the completely isolated human being who, without any other ties to family, friends, comrades, or even mere acquaintances, derives his sense of having a place in the world only from his belonging to a movement, his membership in the party.” (The Origins of Totalitarianism, 323-4) This false sense of belonging can’t be based on any real social identity, since totalitarian movements are arbitrary in their demands, fickle in their objectives and changeable in their actions. Perhaps their only stable feature is the ruthlessness of their punishments: the constant reign of terror.

Fanaticism versus idealism

The masses are fanatical rather than ideological (adhering to a firm set of political or economic principles) or idealist (aspiring, utopically, to moral or political perfection). Far more extreme than a mob, upon which fanaticism has a short-lived hold, the masses can be under the spell of a charismatic evil leader even when it’s no longer in their self-interest. How is this self-defeating attitude possible? Arendt explains: “identification with the movement and total conformism seem to have destroyed the very capacity for experience, even if it be as extreme as torture or fear of death.” (The Origins of Totalitarianism, 308)

The philistine versus the bourgeois

Totalitarian movements transform ordinary human beings into philistines. Arendt describes the philistine as a bourgeois who is isolated from his class. The philistine focuses so much on his own narrow needs that he views victims as “others” rather than as fellow human beings. “Nothing proved easier to destroy than the privacy and the private morality or people who thought of nothing but safeguarding their private lives,” Arendt claims. “After a few years of power and systematic co-ordination, the Nazis could rightly announce: “The only person who is still a private individual in Germany is somebody who is asleep.” (The Origins of Totalitarianism, 338-9) Decades after its publication, The Origins of Totalitarianism remains the most rigorous and systematic explanation—and offers the most elegant political philosophy--for how such mass horrors could have occurred in the 20th century. The book also serves as a necessary reminder that they can happen again for as long as humanity can be dehumanized by totalitarian regimes.

Claudia Moscovici, Literaturesalon

Hasn't been typeset since 1977 mass market/pocket edition. Really irritating.

This is a dense book. By dense I meant that the amount of information, concepts ans ideas per paragraph is very high. One must stop every so often and think about and organize in your own mind what you just read. The book was written right after WWII and published in 1951. There have been 70 years of history since then and 70 years of scholarship devoted to the history and politics since then. The reader needs to remember that you are getting an interpretation from the point of view of someone born in first decade of the 20th century and who has lived through the two world wars and the holocaust. When written Stalin was still alive Germany was a divided and little more than pile of rubble, the British Empire was still intact and so on.

The book is divided into three parts: "Antisemitism", "Imperialism" and "Totalitarianism".

The first part, "Antisemitism" deals with the role Jews played in European history from Roman times up to WWI. In her interpretation Jews found safety in making themselves essential to ruling monarchs and ruling classes. This was by providing financial services. Quite a bit of attention is devoted to the Rothchilds. In the present time any historical account that focuses on the the Rothchild family and Jewish moneylenders can make the reader uncomfortable and fear they one is about the encounter nutty conspiracy theories. Arendt can do this but it still discomfits this reader. Her overriding premise is that the rise of the European nation-states following the French Revolution and the development of civil service establishments in European countries made Jewish financial service no longer essential. At the same time Jews "decision" to remain separate and not to assimilate into European social structures left vulnerable to become a target. (This is, of course, a gross over simplification of Arendt's analysis - but this is a review not a book!)

Part two, "Imperialism" explore the expansion in the late 19th century of British and European power in to Africa and other non-white regions of the planet. This involves an intense analysis of 19th century UK and European social/political history and economic history. American readers may have trouble the the social/political history as it is either unknown to us or conceptually somewhat alien. Further, although Arendt was (as far as I know) a Marxist but her analysis of the period is couched in Marxist concepts and vocabulary. I won't comment about the social/political aspects but since I have a modest familiarity with economic history I have to say I can't buy her analysis on that score. In the 70 years since 1951 the study of economic history has taken a highly quantitative direction and an likely looks at the issues from a very different direction.

. . . TBC

"The Origins of Totalitarianism" by Hannah Arendt (1951; 527 pages).

I first read this book in college; this now the third and most impactful read. The book might be quoted in its entirety to emphasize the need to study, understand and be challenged by the material. Instead, I read each chapter while also taking in lectures by Professor Roger Berkowitz of Bard College (link below to 18 lectures; thank you Dr. Bard for your important work).

I found this a terrifying book; not just in terms of looking in the rear view mirror of history but also looking ahead at what might be. The book is divided into three sections; 1) Antisemitism, 2) Imperialism and 3) Totalitarianism. Below are some quotes and comments I drew from this epic work.

"Totalitarian movements are mass organizations of atomized, isolated individuals." (p323)

"What convinces the masses are not facts, and not even invented facts, but only the consistency of the system of which they are presumably part. What the masses refuse to recognize is the fortuitousness that pervades reality. They are predisposed to all ideologies because they explain facts as mere examples of laws and eliminate coincidences by inventing an all-embracing omnipotence which is supposed to be at the root of every accident. Totalitarianism propaganda thrives on this escape from reality into fiction, from coincidence into consistency." (p351)

"Society is always prone to accept a person offhand for what he pretends to be, so that a crackpot posing as a genius always has a certain chance to be believed. In modern society, with its characteristic lack of discerning judgement, this tendency is strengthened, so that someone who not only holds opinions but also presents them in a tone of unshakable conviction will not easily forfeit his prestige, no matter how many times he is demonstrably wrong." (p305)

"Before they seize power and establish a world according to their doctrine, totalitarian movements conjure up a lying world of consistency which is more adequate to the needs of the human mind than reality itself; in which through sheer imagination, uprooted masses can feel at home and are spared the never ending shocks which real life and real experiences deal to human beings and their expectations. The force possessed by totalitarian propaganda -- before the movements have the power to drop iron curtains to prevent anyone's disturbing, by the slightest reality, the gruesome quiet of an entirely imaginary world -- lies in its ability to shut the masses of from the real world." (p353)

"Practically speaking, the totalitarian ruler proceeds like a man who persistently insults another man until everybody knows that the latter is his enemy, so that he can, with some plausibility, go and kill him in self defense." (p424)

Timeless learnings and warnings from the author; worthy of study and re-study by all. This student also picked up Koestler's "Darkness at Noon", Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" and Bullock's "Hitler, A Study in Tyranny."

Today in the United States, the political ideologies of Fascism and communism are conceptualized as antipodal extremes on the classic American right to left political continuum. Stemming from Cold War understandings of the primacy of economic modes of production in defining the political character of a nation-state, Fascist Nazi Germany is deemed a part of the far right from its reliance on the private sector for economic production, while the Soviet Union bookends the far left because of their utilization of a centralized, state controlled economy. Philosopher Hannah Arendt however, argues that Fascism and Stalinist communism are not political antitheses, but are actually two sides to the same coin of a new overarching socio-political development unique to the modern age; totalitarianism. In The Origins of Totalitarianism Arendt methodologically deconstructs the historical processes and ideologies which eventually crystallized into the totalitarian regimes of Stalin and Hitler in the interwar period of the twentieth century. Through this process, Arendt pinpoints why seemingly rational human beings were inclined to adhere to irrational ideologies of totalitarian movements to a unique condition inherent in modern societies, the proliferation of loneliness. For loneliness, "the experience of not belonging to the world at all... is among the most radical and desperate experiences of man" (475). The success of totalitarian movements then, depends on their ability to exploit the loneliness and desperation fostering in the modern individual through the destruction of preexisting institutions and ideologies.

Like Foucault, Heidegger, and other existential thinkers, Arendt maintains that individuals are born into the world tabula rasa, without inherent beliefs or rights. Drawing from the ideas of Conservative thinker Edwin Burke, Arendt argues human rights and freedoms "acquire their meaning and function organically only when the citizens belong to and are represented by groups or form a social and political hierarchy" (312). Ideas and concepts without powerful social institutions to insure their validity then, are merely nonbinding words on a page or fancies of the imagination. Historic social institutions, formulated by the sacrifices and relationships made by preceding generations play a vital role for Arendt in giving meaning to the lives of human beings. In the early twentieth century however, many traditional cultural institutions and ideas in European society such as class, political parties, and positivist philosophy began to degenerate as Europeans became increasingly disillusioned with their "unauthentic" lives. This disillusionment with the modern world provided the fertile soil for the seeds of totalitarianism to grow, as twentieth century Europeans became "people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction and the distinction between true and false no longer resist" (474). It is in this loneliness and disillusionment which the radical promises and worldview of totalitarian movements gain power, as human beings no longer possessed traditional social relationships and institutions which maintained a notion of common sense. Without common sense, Europeans willingly listened to the radical myths of hate and progress spewed by totalitarian apologists to give meaning in their lives.

Arendt's use of evidence in her monograph is spectacular in its scope, pulling directly from the writings and speeches of Goebbels, Himmler and Hitler, whom frankly promoted their discourses of hate, thus expanding their reach, power and validity. The one shortfall of Arendt's masterpiece is her uneven emphasis on Nazism viz. Stalinism. Yet, even this discrepancy is excusable, as Soviet records remained classified until the demise of the Soviet Union in the final decade of the twentieth century.

Hannah Arendt sets out to explain hatred of the Jewish people as a historical phenomenon, and then explain how that hatred advances totalitarianism. I would really like to understand both phenomena. Having read two of her other works, Eichmann in Jerusalem and The Life of the Mind, I hoped this book would provide that understanding. It didn't, for two or three reasons: (1) long, sometimes impenetrable sentences, (2) lack of evidence to support her claims, and maybe (3) where the duck was her editor in all of this?

A book only works if the individual sentences work. But Dr. Arendt often completely fails to communicate. She packs long long sentences with multiple ideas. It is hard to figure out which one is the main idea and which ones merely modify or explain. I read and reread sentences, searching for the subject and predicate, and some times just gave up.

A scholarly book only works if we can trust its claims, know the evidence on which they are based. But in this book Dr. Arendt rarely offers evidence to support her claims. They all seem perfectly plausible. They generally agree with knowledge I have from other sources. But trust in the author's scholarship only goes so far. It makes a hypothesis plausible. It doesn't make for trustworthy knowledge.

I suspect Dr. Arendt made her editor's life a misery. The initial manuscript must have been an impenetrable jumble for this to be the final work, especially after so many editions.

However great a thinker Dr. Arendt was, she was a terrible writer, at least in this work. Whatever she knew about anti-Semitism and its role in totalitarianism, mostly died with her. This book conveys that knowledge so badly that few readers will receive much of it.

Haannah Arendt's THE ORIGINS OF TOTAITARIANISM(TOT)is both a thoughtful book and a frightening view of both the background of totalitarianism as well as the practical application of this political phenomena. The reader should realize this book requires time and careful thought to appreciate the book's importance.

The first section of the book deals with antisemitism which Miss Arendt argues was a cornerstone of later totalitarianism. She argues that the gradual development of mass culture and mass politics resulted in targeting and scapegoating any target minority such as Jews. She explains that antisemitism was a gradual political movement that exploded in the late 19th and especially in the 20th century. A different thesis could have been presented, but thus far this is the best one this reviewer has read.

Part two of the book explains how imperialism and racism merged especailly during the Age of Nationalism. Religious discord was replaced by sociological and political theories that not only extolled nation but also race and blood. This section deals with these two concepts both in Western Europe and Eastern Europe. One must remember that persecution of Jews was particulary lethal in Eastern Europe between World War I and World War II and espeically during The Second World War.

Part three of the book is the best section of THE ORIGINS OF TOTALITARIANISM. If readers have difficutly with sections one and two of this book, they owe it to themselves to at least read section three.

Miss Arendt makes a frightening assessment that the liquidation (mass murder of people of race or class) was not so much personal vendetta as these mass murders were bureaucratic operations that were done as a matter of political policy and "normal" bureaucratic operations. She warns readers that totalitarian leaders changed enemies almost weekly. In other words, those who were innocent one time were "enemies of the state or people" later. In other words, totalitarian leaders never never exhausted their enemies' lists and kept the masses alert for supposed enemies regardless of the rapid changes in those designated for mass murder. One quote that should alert thoughtful readers is, "The aim of totalitarian education has never been to instill convictions but to destroy the capacity to form any." The serious implication is that totalitarian leaders suspect that thoughtlessness is a virtue which benefits the leaders of the mass political movements. The fact is that once innocent people were arrested, they were "non-persons" whose memories were altered and then forgotten.

This book is a serious warning to anyone who takes pride in individual liberties and appreciates individual achievement regardless of their religious convictions or ancestry. Miss Arendt is clear that totalitarian leaders do not recognize talent except as talented individuals may threaten their arrogant self importance.

Readers would do well to also read Orwell's 1984 and Hoffer's THE TRUE BELIEVER to have a better grasp of THE ORIGINS OF TOTALITARIANISM. This reviewer highly recommends this book with the reservation that this book is not "light reading."

Book is in incredibly great condition; Service is prompt and good.

Parfait. Exactementil correspond exactement à ce qui était attendu. Parfait. Exactementil correspond exactement à ce qui était attendu.Parfait. Exactementil correspond exactement à ce qui était attendu.

A edição em capa dura tem os mesmos problemas mencionados sobre a edição em capa comum: papel de baixa qualidade e impressão com margens pequenas. A capa indica inclusão de um capítulo ausente do texto: “Reflections on the Hungarian Revolution”

How on earth can Amazon put in the same category, i.e. fascism, hannah arendt reference work on totalitarianism together with Alex Jones and other conspiracy theories jugglers.

and they are number one in that very category !!!

this is a sign of our times... and Amazon holds responsibility in spreading and promoting gut-grabbing instincts and books.

it is enough to read the presentation of Alex Jones item for sale and compare that with the presentation of Hannah Arendt's book to see that for Jones the riding of "totalitarianism" wave is only a sales pitch and an argument for making money, this was not Hannah Arendt intent.

Do yourself a favour and take the time to nurture your critical mind with a genuine work, result of years of research, the Origins of Totalitarianism will leave a strong imprint that will, no doubt, help you understand the confusion that is developing

To understand a little further the complexity of our world and how Totalitarianism is now being wrapped up in Internet connectivity, refer to Zuboff's Age of Surveillance Capitalism and you will not need the Jones and company to sell you their biased commercial addictive statements

please use real works ... it is not an easy reading but who said it should be easy to understand complex issues

Alex Jones? categorised in Fascism?

come on

Very fast delivery