To forgive and forget?

The reign of totalitarianism has ended for many years now, but through critiquing the flaws and the terror totalitarianism has come into mind, the question to ponder with totalitarianism as being a part of history is on whether we should forgive and forget the existence of totalitarianism or not. Such an act seems to be very plausible in modern society, of which President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is the best example for such an act as she granted executive pardon to the ousted president Joseph Ejercito Estrada for his case involving plunder and corruption, among a long list of crimes committed by the ousted president. It may seem to be the ideal act, given in the context of the Christian Roman catholic Church, where we are taught to forgive our enemies for any wrong acts they have committed on us.
And yet this act is heavily debated when it comes to the case of the totalitarian government. Some people refuse to forgive and forget it, while others would prefer to simply forgive it and forget all about it. When asked about my opinion regarding the said debate, I would go for the former. But why be unforgivable to a type of government that has not even existed during the time I was born? Why be mad still at Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Lenin, even if they are dead already? Why should I support Arendt’s view of totalitarianism as an evil government, even if the real intention of totalitarianism was not meant to be as evil as how Arendt has pictured it?
First of all, we should put in consideration the very fact that the human being is by itself an historical being, meaning that by being historical, we all progress ourselves throughout the course of time, by learning the successes, failures, mistakes, and good decisions of the past. Having said that, I beg to disagree in forgetting the evil Totalitarianism has brought us in the books, the documentaries, and the testimonies of people who were a part of such reign of terror. Forgetting totalitarianism is tad amount to saying that totalitarianism was nothing, and that totalitarianism is something of insignificance to the human race. It is obviously not like you can make up for the millions of deaths it has occurred. I mean, even if Adolf Hitler’s descendants pay the Jews even a trillion dollars just to make the Jews forget the brutality of Hitler’s reign and in his effort in exterminating the Jews, the past is past; you can never pay up for the death of a human person
Second, we should not forgive totalitarianism because of the inhumanity it has caused to people, especially to the Jews. By the mere fact that totalitarianism is incomparable to any other form of government system that has ever existed and by the fact that totalitarianism has degraded the state of humanity is a clear, pinpoint indication that it should never be forgiven or forgotten as being part of history. Hitler may be dead, but that does not mean that we forgive him for his brutal acts. The same applies to the likes of Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot. These leaders, no matter what, have become perfect representations of abusive power and reigns of terror, that our descendants should hand down to their children and beyond. This era of terror should serve as a reminder of the flaws that man has made in an attempt to stabilize society.
Hence, although there have been recent criticisms on Hannah Arendt that she made the idea of totalitarianism purely evil in her own perspective, I guess she had every humanly possible right to do so, even if it may be right or wrong. First of all, she is a Jew, and seeing Germans brutally killing her race by itself can be very traumatic to a typical Jew like Arendt. If I were a Jew (realistically I am a Roman Catholic), I would do the same thing that Arendt has presented totalitarianism to my fellow Filipinos as well. How would you feel if a certain leader attempts to exterminate your race for no particular reason but just because of black propaganda? I myself would be perpetually infuriated by such an act. If it was possible, I would plan a counter-attack against the race of Hitler, doing the same brutal acts to his fellow people. But that is on the ideal perspective.
In the more realistic perspective, the rationale on why Hannah Arendt had to describe totalitarianism that is because she wanted the world, her audience, to see how injustice, racial discrimination, and dehumanization was done to a particular group of people, in her case, the Jewish people. By describing the horrors of totalitarianism, Arendt depicts to the audience that although the era of brutal killings and excessive racial discrimination has ended already, Arendt wants to serve this as a reminder of the mistakes committed in the past and through this she hopes that these mistakes should not happen again.
Hence, my rationale why I refuse to forgive and forget totalitarianism for what it has done and for what it has contributed in history is that what totalitarianism has caused should mark as a reminder that we should be careful with what we want in the progression of both history and humanity; going beyond human means could possibly destroy this important progression if we just forget about totalitarianism.

Totalitarianism: The surprising facts

Through re-analyzing the important points and view on Totalitarianism through Hannah Arendt’s book, The Origins of Totalitarianism, one can see many unexplored views on Totalitarianism that most of us would often misinterpret about.
Among the first essential points I would like to discuss here is the fact that the concept of a stateless society. One of the potentially dangerous things Totalitarianism has done is the fact that when it meant a socially equal society, it meant the removal of the identities of the human person, that is, the human person as being unique and different. In the case of Totalitarianism, it has transformed every human person into a mere big group of species. Resulting from the abusive power of Capitalism, as seen through Marxism,Totalitarianism likewise treats history as a perpetual process, revolving on the cycle between the totalitarian leader and the masses following the totalitarian leader blindly. Likewise, Totalitarianism is considered to be a part of modernity due to the exchange of roles of the public and the private sphere. Before, the public sphere in classical political theory is managed by the lawmakers while the private sphere is managed by the people of the state. In modern political theory, what happens is the the public sphere becomes the people, in the case of Totalitarianism, the masses, while the private sphere became the rulers, and in the Totalitarian aspect, the Totalitarian leader who has absolute control over the masses.
Like how Arendt discuss how Totalitarianism came about, we can look at Totalitarianism as being originated from Capitalism. How? Because in Capitalism, the main goal of it is to gain as much profit as possible with the least investment. Hence, Capitalism attempts to expand the overall power of the nation state, but what it has underestimated is the fact that this “stretching of power” has a certain limit; there will come a time wherein there are little to no possible ways of expanding the profit power of the nation state. As a result of this Imperialism was born.
Through Imperialism, the emerging capitalist nation state now then expands without any concern for territorial borders, capturing as many states as possible. Now because of this further expansion of the capitalist nation state to other states, the capitalist nation state would then give an illusion of helping the other states of their needs, yet in reality, this certain support the capitalist nation state can give would be only guaranteed to its people; hence, it does not give absolute protection to every state it captures since the capitalist nation state would not bother to protect nation-less states. The main priority of the capitalist nation state is always its people first.
As a result, the captured states are then absorbed to a bigger blob - that is, the capitalist nation state, and hence would result into the degradation of the people of these captured states into the mass man, wherein they are species being who do not belong to anywhere, which has been the case for the anti-semitism approach of the Nazi party during the rule of Adolf Hitler.
Another important point that is seen with Totalitarianism is the nature of the masses being discussed here. The masses here are being described into a feeling of uselessness - a result of the first point - and hence bringing the masses into a state of loneliness. What happens is that the totalitarian leader, through the power of propaganda, tries to “relate” to these masses, and hence persuading the masses to join his movement. What happens then is the masses becoming obedient blindly to the totalitarian leader, and because they are the followers of the totalitarian leader, they end up being dependent with the totalitarian leader.
Now what makes the totalitarian leader problematic? First of all, the problem with this is that the masses, which would amount to millions of people, end up trusting this sole human person leader they have when it comes to outside relations, giving the image of the totalitarian leader having control of one big blob, that with the one big blob, everyone should agree to it at all costs. In addition, because of the existence of mass movements being for the leader, criticizing the leader for his wrong decisions or flaws is now an impossible task since the mass movements are people who are brainwashed in the first place, and because they still remain powerless, the result of it becomes simple: the masses believe therefore that the leader is always right.
This does not mean therefore that because of this the totalitarian leader is absolutely powerful; it has its downfall as well. The major downfall of Totalitarianism, which is surprising, is its lack of ambition. Because of the totalitarian leader being “perpetually” right in away, this makes the leader himself not desiring for more as he has reached the end of the line. Also, because of the blurring between friends and career in a Totalitarian government, the leader therefore is torn apart, ending into an uncompromising desire.

Totalitarianism: The evil child

While learning about the principles behind totalitarianism, which is best associated with leaders like Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Vladimir Lenin, a quick and concise way of describing what totalitarianism is all about can be summed up with five words: Big Brother is watching you.
I am referring here to both the reality show and beyond it. In lay man’s terms, the idea behind a big brother society is simple: we stay in an isolated community, where we are voided of any contact from outside that state we live in, and every move we make is constantly being monitored by a certain person that the residents of that state should follow to. In this isolated community, every request and order the “Big Brother” says to the people must be followed or else they will face a certain consequence. Whatever “Big Brother” likes, his people should conform. This is how the reality show goes on.
In a totalitarian sense, the “Big Brother” show is indeed a less violent form of totalitarianism, since the real totalitarianism that we are talking about here, of which had its peak from the 1920s up to the 1940s, is that totalitarianism injects violence and fear to its people in order to make everyone in the state follow and supposedly “live in a stable environment”.
The real totalitarian government is not as simple as what “Big Brother” is doing in the reality show; instead, the totalitarian leader has total control (hence, a derivation from the root word or totalitarianism which is total, meaning complete and whole) over the whole state. In addition, when I mean total control here, I mean that the totalitarian leader has control from what he likes the media to show to the public to the days when certain activities, such as sports and entertainment, should be held. And not just that the totalitarian leader watches every move of the individual living in his state, he in fact forces each of the individual to not be unique and instead have every individual carry the same thought and beliefs all throughout every aspect regarding the state, which therefore discourages the formation of elite classes, middle classes, and lower classes in the state.
A classless society who think alike - that is what totalitarianism is all about. No one can go against the government, no one can say that the government is wrong, as the government is always right. No one can share ideas and innovation as it is forbidden by society. No one can have it their way; it has to be always in the favor of the totalitarian leader. What the totalitarian leader says must be followed. If the totalitarian leader does not like you, he can have you killed instantly; if he does, then good for you. The whole point of this? The individual becomes like a toy or pet of the totalitarian leader, where he can do whatever he would like. The totalitarian leader is a child - an evil child - that does brutal things to his toys and pets. This evil child does not care what happens to his toys or pets whether they get destroyed (in the case of the toys) or if they die (in the case of the pets); the important thing is that he is happy and satisfied.
The result with such? The people living in a totalitarian state become paranoid with their every move, with what they say, with what they do, and with what they know. They have been degraded from intellectual human beings into just mere species of animals with no intellect in the sense that the uniqueness of the human being, and its ability to reason, has been stripped out of them by the totalitarian leader. Because of this, people belonging to the totalitarian state act like robots, who follow orders unconsciously even if it is wring in the first place.
Hence, the idea behind totalitarianism resulted into pure horror to the human race. The degradation and the violence it caused has transformed the classless society of human beings into just a society of robots being governed by a lone “human” being. Instead of promoting equality in a peaceful way, totalitarianism forces people to be equal, robbing them of their basic rights as humans. For me, the ultimate flaw with totalitarianism is the fact that induces violence and that it gives overwhelming power to the said totalitarian leader, which in the end would still not lead to equality but instead would lead to injustice, making the totalitarian leader use up all his power to force people to follow him, creating an illusion of an “equal” society where in reality it is never equal.
Maybe through what totalitarianism has caused within our history, we should realize that although we would desire to have a equal society (as what Marxism and Communism desired in the first place), it is indeed ideal to form a equal society where justice is served properly, people are treated equally, and everyone is given basic human rights, but realistically such is an herculean task that will be really hard to accomplish, but nonetheless, we can still work it out to make society as equal as possible, but not in a violent way as what totalitarianism promoted.