How does totalitarianism start

Why no clique? One reason is that the goal of totalitarianism is not the welfare of the state. It is not economic prosperity or social advancement. The reason why the ingenious devices of totalitarian rule, with their absolute and unsurpassed concentration of power in the hands of a single man, were never tried before is that no ordinary tyrant was ever mad enough to discard all limited and local interests — economic, national, human, military — in favor of a purely fictitious reality in some indefinite distant future.

Since independent thinkers are a threat, they are among the first to be purged. Bureaucratic functions are duplicated and layered, with people being shifted all the time. This regular violent turnover of the whole gigantic administrative machine, while it prevents the development of competence, has many advantages: it assures the relative youth of officials and prevents a stabilization of conditions which, at least in time of peace, are fraught with danger for totalitarian rule….

Any chances of discontent and questioning of the status quo are eliminated by this perpetual rising of the newly indoctrinated. Totalitarianism in power is about keeping itself in power. By preemptively removing large groups of people, the system neutralizes all those who might question it. Possibly the one ray of hope in these systems is that because they pay no attention to actually governing, they are not likely to be sustainable in the long run.

The incredibility of the horrors is closely bound up with their economic uselessness. The Nazis carried this uselessness to the point of open anti-utility when in the midst of the war, despite the shortage of building material and rolling stock, they set up enormous, costly extermination factories and transported millions of people back and forth.

In the eyes of a strictly utilitarian world the obvious contradiction between these acts and military expediency gave the whole enterprise an air of mad unreality. But in the meantime, what these regimes create is so devastating to humanity that it would be naive to assume that humanity will always bounce back. Here the night has fallen on the future.

When no witnesses are left, there can be no testimony. The carnage they create tears apart all social fabric. And we must not assume that they exist only in the past. Read Next. Those conditions alone were not sufficient to lead to totalitarianism. But inaction in the face of them added a dangerous element into the mix.

Arendt worried that totalitarian solutions could outlive the demise of past totalitarian regimes. These could result in ethically compromised consequences. It was a plea for attentive, thoughtful civil disobedience to emerging authoritarian rule. Portsmouth Climate Festival — Portsmouth, Portsmouth. Edition: Available editions United Kingdom. Become an author Sign up as a reader Sign in. A photo of political theorist and scholar Hannah Arendt.

AP Photo. Jones , San Diego State University. Author Kathleen B. The difference between them lies less in the tech that the countries employ and more in how they use it. What if the definition of what is illegal in the US and the UK expanded to include criticising the government or practising certain religions? The infrastructure is already in place to enforce it, and AI — which the NSA has already begun experimenting with — would enable agencies to search through our data faster than ever before.

In addition to enhancing surveillance, AI also underpins the growth of online misinformation, which is another tool of the authoritarian. AI-powered deep fakes, which can spread fabricated political messages , and algorithmic micro-targeting on social media are making propaganda more persuasive.

This undermines our epistemic security — the ability to determine what is true and act on it — that democracies depend on. The Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence report, written by Belfield and 25 authors from 14 institutions, forecasts that trends like these will expand existing threats to our political security and introduce new ones in the coming years. Still, Belfield says his work makes him hopeful and that positive trends, like more democratic discussions around AI and actions by policy-makers for example, the EU considering pausing facial recognition in public places , keep him optimistic that we can avoid catastrophic fates.

Davey agrees. If we're arming police with facial recognition and the federal government is collecting all of our data, that's a bad start. If you remain sceptical that AI could offer such power, consider the world before nuclear weapons. Three years before the first nuclear chain reaction, even scientists trying to achieve it believed it was unlikely. We can do the same with AI, but only if we combine the lessons of history with the foresight to prepare for this powerful technology.

The world may not be able to stop totalitarian regimes like the Nazis rising again in the future — but we can avoid handing them the tools to extend their power indefinitely. Join one million Future fans by liking us on Facebook , or follow us on Twitter or Instagram. If you liked this story, sign up for the weekly bbc.

Artificial intelligence.