(Arendt, 2004)
Arendt, H. (2004). The origins of totalitarianism (1st ed.). New York: Schocken Books.
The Political Emancipation of the Bourgeoisie
This chapter outlines the development of society towards a system of imperialism. This occurs through the “emancipation” of the bourgeoisie politically, as they become more active and promote their interests.
The bourgeoisie where the, “…first class in history to achieve economic preeminence without aspiring to political rule” (167). This transition marks the first stage in the transition to imperialist economic and political policies. In previous stages of development, this class left the decisions of policy to the state, as long as these groups protected their property rights and thus left a milieu for business interests to take place.
“Imperialism was born when the ruling class in capitalist production came up against national limitations to its economic expansion. The bourgeoisie turned to politics out of economic necessity; for if it did not want to give up the capitalist system whose inherent law is constant economic growth, it had to impose this law upon its home governments and to proclaim expansion to be an ultimate political goal of foreign policy” (170).
Arendt criticizes the movement towards imperialism in the early 20th century as not having the same moral authority as earlier movements towards empire, specifically she mentions
As the bourgeoisie class continued to save and accumulate capital, outlets for investments domestically dwindled. This is one of the drivers of the imperialist need to invest abroad in under developed markets. “Imperialism must be considered the first stage in political rule of the bourgeoisie rather than the last stage of capitalism” (185).
She goes on to bring Hobbes into her argument, positing that the bourgeoisie class was the first to really take his teachings and bring them both to the political and economic sphere. “Power…is the accumulated control that permits the individual to fix prices and regulate supply and demand in such a way that they contribute to his own advantage…therefore, if man is actually driven by nothing but his individual interests, desire for power must be the fundamental passion of man” (187).
The emerging society was one of power and not of rights. The relationship between the state and bourgeoisie society shifted, with the later being chiefly concerned with their own power through amassed capital, and the former being destined to bring about the latter’s security and freedom from crime, etc. “This process of never-ending accumulation of power necessary for the protection of a never-ending accumulation of capital determined the ‘progressive’ ideology of the late nineteenth century and foreshadowed the rise of imperialism” (191). “The so-called accumulation of capital which gave birth to the bourgeoisie changed the very conception of property and wealth: they were no longer considered to be the results of accumulation and acquisition but their beginnings; wealth became a never-ending process of getting wealthier” (193).
“Death is the real reason why property and acquisition can never become a true political principle” (194).
“Hobbes was the true, though never fully recognized, philosopher of the bourgeoisie because he realized that acquisition of wealth conceived as a never-ending process can be guaranteed only by the seizure of political power, for the accumulation process must sooner or later force open all existing territorial limits” (195).
She ends this section of her work by tracing out a gradual decline of industrialized nations and a movement towards base nationalism. This decline can also be seen in Lenin’s account of the inner-decay of imperialist countries.
