Chapter 6 of The Crisis of Modernity, by Augusto Del Noce, is titled “Toward a New Totalitarianism.” It is the “technological society,” a.k.a. “consumerist society” or “the affluent society” in which this totalizing logic is effected.
“I certainly do not need to repeat again that I do not confuse at all the critique of this society with some absurd denial of the progress of science and technology, and of the benefits they bring. Indeed, the transition from ‘technical progress’ to the ‘technological society’ is not at all immediate. It is mediated by another factor, which is the ‘totalitarian’ conception of science, in which science is regarded as the ‘only’ true form of knowledge. According to this view, every other type of knowledge — metaphysical or religious — expresses only ‘subjective reactions,’ which we are able, or will be able, to explain by extending science to the human sphere through psychological and sociological research.
“A scientistic thinker (and a society inspired by his thought) cannot help being totalitarian inasmuch as ‘he cannot possibly prove’ his claim that science rules out all other forms of knowledge, and thus certain dimensions of reality, which are declared to be either unknowable or nonexistent (‘nonsensical questions’ according to the most barbaric form of thought that ever appeared, so-called analytical philosophy). Indeed, scientism neither ‘sublates’ other forms of thought nor tries to elevate them to a higher level, but simply ‘negates them.’ At the same time, just like the supporters of every other form of totalitarianism, an advocate of scientism ‘must’ think that the society he proposes will be legitimized by some future ‘unverifiable’ outcome. His reasoning is strictly analogous to that of a Communist. Just as a Communist thinks that after the revolution, after the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc., mankind will enter an age of super-human happiness, so does a believer in scientism. The only difference from a Communist is that he contradicts himself and, what is worse, he does so hypocritically, inasmuch as he thinks that, because his philosophy asserts that only what can be verified by everybody is real, he is the true ideal champion of democracy. Thus, by accepting the guidance of science we will march toward a full reconciliation of nature and civilization through a peaceful evolution.
“As a matter of fact, many people do not realize that scientism and the technological society are totalitarian in nature. They say: let science organize the social sphere. There is still the other sphere, interior life, in which science has no jurisdiction. This would be true if there was a ‘moral’ consensus between the proponents of scientism and other people. In fact, however, scientism includes as essential a form of morality (what is often called the ‘pleasure principle’ or, as I wrote elsewhere, the pure increase of vitality) which is ‘absolutely contradictory’ to traditional ethics.
“I have already said that scientism is more opposed to tradition than Communism because in Communism we can still find messianic and biblical archetypes (e.g., in the idea of the proletariat as the universal mediator) which give it the appearance of what was often described as a ‘secular religion.’ Nikolai Berdyaev, now forgotten, wrote that the Marxist revolution carries within itself ‘the reflected light of the apocalypse’ and that it was able to succeed because of the strong inclination toward an apocalyptic mindset found in the Russian soul and in the large majority of Russian intellectuals at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries. This was the reason why Marxism could appear, from this Russian perspective, as ‘a doctrine of deliverance, of the messianic vocation of the proletariat, of the future perfect society in which man will not be dependent on economics.’ Now, this messianic aspect, which allowed Marxism to put down roots in the Russian tradition, is precisely what is being rejected by scientism and by the technological society.
“But, in light of this, we understand why scientistic anti-traditionalism can express itself only by dissolving the ‘fatherlands’ where it was born. Because of the very nature of science, which provides means but does not determine any ends, scientism lends itself to be used as a tool by some group. Which group? The answer is completely obvious: once the fatherlands are gone, all that is left are the great economic organisms, which look more and more like fiefdoms. States become their executive instruments, confirming the old Marxist-Leninist thesis, but through a different route from that predicted by Marxism-Leninism.”
— from Augusto Del Noce, The Crisis of Modernity (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2014)