Demokrasi totaliter: Perbedaan revisi

15 bita dihapus ,  13 tahun yang lalu
Robot: Cosmetic changes
k (Robot: Cosmetic changes)
:Indeed, from the vantage point of the mid twentieth century the history of the last hundred and fifty years looks like a systematic preparation for the headlong collision between empirical and liberal democracy on the one hand, and totalitarian Messianic democracy on the other, in which the world crisis of to-day consists. []
In a similar vein, [[Herbert Marcuse]], in his [[1964 in literature|1964]] book ''[[One-Dimensional Man]]'', describes a society in which, in his words, "…liberty…liberty can be made into a powerful instrument of domination. … Free election of masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves."
==Differences in democratic philosophy==
===Cold War and socio-economic illustrations===
The period of the [[Cold War]] following WWII saw great [[Ideology|ideological]] [[Polarization (politics)|polarization]] between the so-called "[[Free World]]" and the [[Communist state]]s. Yet the irony was, and is, that both Eastern and Western governments were faced with the same barriers in achieving their objectives—theobjectives—the objections of their own citizens. In the East, religious and intellectual repression was met with increasing resistance, and the [[1956 Hungarian Revolution|Hungarian revolt of 1956]] and [[Alexander Dubček]]'s [[Prague Spring]] in [[1968]] are two well-known acts of defiance. In the United States, in the meantime, alleged Communists and Communist sympathizers were being investigated by Senator [[Joseph McCarthy]]. Shortly after the time of Talmon's book, the [[Vietnam War]] would bring active hostility between the American government and many of its citizens.
One concept fundamental to both "liberal" and "totalitarian" democracy is that of [[liberty]]. According to Talmon, totalitarian democracy sees freedom as something which can be achieved only in the long term, and only through collective effort; the political goal of ultimate order and ultimate harmony will bring ultimate freedom. In addressing every aspect of the lives of its citizens, the totalitarian democratic state has the power to ensure that all material needs are met from cradle to grave, and all that is required of the citizen is to carry out his role, whatever it may be, to the best of his ability. Liberal democracy, on the other hand, posits freedom as something which can and should be achieved by the individual in the short term, even at the expense of things such as material well-being, and sees as an element of this freedom a "freedom from government" wherein the individual is able to exercise "freedom" in his own terms to the extent that they do not contravene the law. Proponents of both kinds of democracy argue that their particular approach is the best one for the citizens of their respective countries.
[ ''The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy'']
*[ Paradigm: from totalitarian democracy to libertarian polyarchy]
*[ Criticizing Totalitarian Democracy: Herbert Marcuse and Alexis de Tocqueville (Zvi Tauber)]
* Untuk otoritarianisme di Timur Tengah, lihat Chris Zambelis, [ The Strategic Implications of Political Liberalization and Democratization in the Middle East], aslihnya dalam ''Parameters'', the U.S. Army War College Quarterly, Musim gugur 2005.
[[Kategori:Bentuk pemerintahan]]
[[en:Totalitarian democracy]]
[[pl:Demokracja totalitarna]]
[[he:דמוקרטיה טוטליטרית]]
[[pl:Demokracja totalitarna]]