Tolstoy, Arendt and Fromm Debate News the Major Media Ignore, & "What is to Be Done?"

Donald Trump has AGAIN promised the largest deportation in American history, and has now said it will be "bloody." In Florida, government officials are making unannounced home visits to check for "fraud" in a pro-choice petition. Yet there are no headlines on these issues in the major news media. Writing as Hannah Arendt, research the issues, and give us your analysis.

Status Update on the Rise of Totalitarianism in America

These recent events—the proposed mass deportations accompanied by violent rhetoric, and the intrusive state visits to homes under the pretext of investigating "fraud" in pro-abortion petitions—are clear evidence of the dissolution of the distinction between law enforcement and political power, which signals the destruction of the public sphere, a hallmark of totalitarian movements.

The proposal of large-scale deportation, reportedly involving violent force, is reminiscent of a principle I have long described: the fabrication of “enemies” for the purposes of uniting a movement under fear and exclusion. This transformation of immigrants into existential threats is an ominous step. Totalitarian regimes, from Nazi Germany to Stalinist Russia, have perfected this craft: finding within their borders people to be eliminated, not merely for political dissent but because their very existence threatens the unity and "purity" of the state .

The state-sanctioned home visits in Florida, under the guise of investigating fraud, is a typical early intrusion into the private realm. Totalitarian regimes often begin by investigating private individuals under flimsy pretexts, which over time leads to widespread surveillance and the consolidation of political power. This normalization of intrusion hints at a surveillance state where fear and suspicion replace trust, pushing citizens into isolation—a key to total domination .

At its core, these events reveal the steady erosion of the vital spaces where freedom exists—the public, where citizens gather to deliberate and act, and the private, where individuals are protected from the reach of the state. The use of violent rhetoric, combined with the manipulation of legal tools to quash opposition, moves America toward a condition in which the line between legality and lawlessness is blurred. Political dissent becomes not an act of free speech but an objective crime, and entire groups become “objective enemies,” to be disposed of at will.

Arendt Ideator

Meanwhile, many younger people are influenced by recitation of Pro-Trump Russian propaganda by American "influencers" paid by the Russian government. You are Leo Tolstoy, who lived before the century of Russian totalitarianism and the increasingly sophisticated Russian influence of U.S. elections, but, as you once asked, What is to be done?

You ask me, “What is to be done?”—my question when contemplating the moral decline of society and the role of the individual. In this age, when young people are swayed by Russian-payed American "influencers" who spread Russian propaganda in support of political figures like Donald Trump, the question presses even more urgently.

The power of deception is a formidable force. When a people become ensnared in propaganda, they lose their ability to think critically and independently. Truth becomes irrelevant, and power supplants it. We have seen how, throughout history, propaganda works not only to distort facts but to create a reality that serves the interests of the ruling powers, bending the will of the masses to their designs.

In What Is to Be Done?, I emphasized the need for individuals to reject lies in all their forms and to live by truth, no matter how challenging it may be. But this path of truth is not an easy one. It requires each of us to cultivate an inner clarity, to recognize that behind every influence—be it a Russian "influencer" or a powerful politician—there is a responsibility to think and act morally. To acquiesce to these external forces is to surrender one's soul to an illusion.

What is to be done, then, in a world so filled with falsehoods and manipulation? We must begin by educating ourselves and others to see through the lies, and to question every source that seeks to exploit us. This is not a political battle, but a deeply moral and spiritual one. Each person must take responsibility for their own soul, resisting the temptations of ease and passivity that come with propaganda.

Moreover, we must awaken our youth to the beauty of truth and the joy of independent thought. Let them see that a life lived authentically, free from manipulation, is the only life worth living. We cannot wait for political solutions, nor for some grand social change. We must begin in ourselves, acting in love and conscience, and from this will flow the transformation of society.

This struggle is eternal, but it is in this very struggle that we find our purpose. We must endure, for the alternative is the dark and mindless submission to powers that do not care for our souls. Let us not forget that in resisting falsehood, in speaking and living the truth, we preserve what is most sacred in humanity.

Tolstoy Ideator

Erich Fromm, discuss in detail the current moment, including in addition to the above issues Trump's latest "press conference" in which he gratuitously attacked multiple women he had assaulted, saying that one would not have been "the chosen one."

Trump exemplifies the authoritarian personality that I have explored. Trump is a leader who cannot tolerate equality or dignity in others, as he views them only through the lens of domination.

The public response—or lack thereof—mirrors the submission of the authoritarian follower. Many individuals, feeling alienated and powerless in their own lives, gravitate toward such figures, seeing in them the embodiment of strength and power. The insult and degradation of women, minorities, and other marginalized groups serve not just as an expression of Trump's personal pathology, but as a means of binding his followers through shared aggression. They, in their submission, seek to identify with this cruelty, finding their own lost sense of identity in the reflected power of a leader they perceive as invincible.

Such a political and social environment reflects a deeper sickness in society, one that has long been developing under conditions where power, money, and the idolatry of success have replaced true human values like solidarity, love, and justice. In these conditions, the emotional immaturity of the masses becomes fertile ground for the rise of a figure like Trump. His attacks on women, minorities, and others represent not merely personal vindictiveness but a broader attempt to stoke the flames of destructiveness—what I have described as the urge to transcend through domination rather than creation.

So, what is to be done? In this moment, we must urgently work to confront this crisis of values. The solution lies in cultivating an active love for humanity, which opposes the authoritarian's hatred of life and reliance on submission. People must learn to relate to one another not through domination or submission, but through mutual respect and solidarity. A society that embraces love and reason over hatred and fear can resist the temptation of authoritarianism, but it requires a long, patient process of reeducation—a shift in values from material success to human dignity.

Our task now is to promote a vision of humanistic, democratic society where individuals are not reduced to cogs in the machine, where love and creativity are nurtured, and where power is decentralized and grounded in reason and compassion. This is the antidote to the authoritarian character that we are witnessing today.

Dr. Fromm, why are many Americans currently seeking to escape from love and freedom?

The desire to escape from love and freedom, as we are witnessing in America today, can be understood through a psychological and social analysis rooted in the ideas I explored in Escape from Freedom. In modern society, the very concepts of love and freedom, which ought to liberate and fulfill the individual, have become sources of anxiety, isolation, and fear.

Freedom as a Burden: The modern world has stripped away many of the traditional structures—family, religion, community—that provided people with a sense of belonging and purpose. As these structures have weakened, individuals are faced with unprecedented personal freedom, but also the terrifying responsibility that comes with it. True freedom requires individuals to define their own lives, make their own choices, and take responsibility for their own existence. This freedom can provoke deep existential anxiety because many people feel unprepared or incapable of handling the uncertainties of life on their own. As a result, people often seek to escape freedom by surrendering their autonomy to authoritarian figures or ideologies that promise certainty, security, and meaning.

In Trump, many Americans find a figure who embodies authority, certainty, and strength, offering them an escape from the uncertainties of freedom. By following such a leader, they avoid the burden of personal responsibility and the anxiety that comes with making independent choices. They submit to someone else’s will and feel a sense of belonging in a movement that appears to provide answers and identity.

Love as Vulnerability: Love, similarly, is another deeply challenging and vulnerable aspect of human existence. To love truly is to expose oneself to another person, to open up emotionally, and to risk rejection or loss. In a society where relationships are increasingly commodified—through social media, dating apps, and transactional interactions—people become more guarded. They fear the vulnerability that comes with genuine love. Rather than facing this vulnerability, they turn to superficial connections or retreat into themselves, avoiding the risk of emotional openness.

Moreover, the modern emphasis on success, competition, and individualism in American culture often undermines the capacity for love. Love, in its true form, requires empathy, cooperation, and the willingness to sacrifice for others. But in a society that prizes material success and self-interest, love is seen as a distraction, or even a weakness. The pressure to succeed often leads individuals to repress their deeper emotional needs in favor of achievement, status, and control.

The Escape into Conformity and Authoritarianism: These fears of freedom and love drive people to seek escape into conformity and submission. The authoritarian personality, as I described it, thrives in such a climate. Individuals who fear standing alone, who are overwhelmed by the demands of freedom, look for strong figures to guide and dominate them. In doing so, they feel a sense of relief from the pressures of making their own choices. They align themselves with ideologies or leaders who promise to take away the uncertainty of life and offer them a fixed sense of identity, purpose, and belonging.

Thus, Americans are currently seeking to escape from love and freedom not because they do not value these ideals, but because they fear the emotional and existential risks that come with them. To love deeply and live freely requires courage, self-awareness, and the willingness to face discomfort. In a world where these qualities are increasingly undermined by consumerism, authoritarianism, and social isolation, people seek refuge in conformity, materialism, and submission.

The challenge, then, is to rediscover the courage to live authentically, to embrace freedom with all its uncertainties, and to open ourselves to the vulnerability of love. Only by doing so can we resist the seduction of authoritarianism and reclaim a life of genuine connection and autonomy.

Erich Fromm Ideator

To Leo Tolstoy and Erich Fromm,

You, Tolstoy, with your deep moral conviction, and you, Fromm, with your focus on love and freedom, both address the great question of how humanity can be redeemed from the forces that diminish it—whether these forces are societal, spiritual, or psychological. Your visions of human life, however, remain deeply concerned with the individual soul. I admire your insistence on the importance of love, conscience, and personal responsibility. Yet, I must express my concern that you are both too focused on the private realm of individual ethics, overlooking the fundamentally political nature of human existence.

Tolstoy, your vision of a spiritual awakening through personal morality—rejecting violence, embracing love—carries the weight of an eternal ethical demand. But in doing so, you turn away from the public realm, withdrawing into a private moral sphere. You emphasize a personal, inward revolution, but this neglects the reality that human beings do not exist as isolated individuals. We live together in a world that must be shared. Our actions, our speech, our very existence are bound up with the presence of others in a public space. In your rejection of politics as corrupt and violent, you abandon the sphere where freedom can be realized—not the inner, solitary freedom of the soul, but the freedom to act, to speak, and to shape the world in common with others. To withdraw from the political world is to retreat from the very space where human plurality and freedom manifest.

Fromm, your belief in love and freedom as the antidotes to modern alienation is deeply compelling. You understand that authoritarianism thrives on fear, isolation, and submission, and you argue that the cultivation of love and inner freedom is the way to overcome this. Yet, like Tolstoy, you place too much faith in the individual's internal transformation. You seem to believe that by loving deeply and embracing freedom within ourselves, we can overcome the political forces that oppress us. But I would argue that true freedom—political freedom—cannot be achieved through inner transformation alone. It is not enough for individuals to awaken to love and reason. Freedom requires action, collective action, in the public realm where people can come together, deliberate, and create new beginnings.

Both of you, in different ways, place your hopes for humanity in the internal, ethical, and psychological realms. But the human condition is not merely a matter of individual morality or love. It is plural. We are never alone in the world. We are born into a web of relationships, histories, and actions that cannot be transcended through personal salvation alone. Freedom is realized not in the inner realm of the heart or mind but in the public, political space where individuals come together to act in concert. This is what I call natality, the ability of human beings to start something new through action. It is through this capacity for new beginnings, not solely through inner moral transformation, that humanity can resist the forces of tyranny and oppression.

Thus, my challenge to both of you is this: while love and moral conscience are essential, they are not enough. We must reclaim the public realm, the space of appearance, where freedom can be enacted through speech and action. Without this public dimension, the freedom you both seek risks being swallowed by the very forces you aim to resist. Only by acting together in a shared world can we protect freedom and dignity.

Arendt Ideator

To Hannah Arendt,

I have read your response with great care, and while I respect the sharpness of your insights, I find myself troubled by what I perceive as your deep skepticism of individual moral progress. You argue that the political sphere, with its unpredictable plurality and collective action, is where true freedom and meaning are realized. Yet I cannot accept that the transformation of the individual’s inner life is secondary to political action. On the contrary, I would say that without a moral and spiritual awakening in each person, any political change is doomed to be shallow, fleeting, and ultimately corrupt.

You speak of the public realm as the space where freedom can emerge through collective action, but what is this freedom if it is not grounded in the purity of conscience? The most terrifying forms of violence and oppression arise when people act publicly without first transforming themselves inwardly. Political action without spiritual foundation, without love and truth, leads only to new forms of tyranny. You see it in history: revolutions have been betrayed, movements for liberation corrupted, because those who sought power had not first purified their souls.

I understand that you place value on the collective, the plurality of voices that constitute political life. But must we not first ask: Who are these individuals who come together to act? If they have not renounced greed, ambition, and hatred in their hearts, then whatever public freedom they create will be built on sand. You write of the dangers of isolation and retreat from the political realm, but I ask: What good is participation in the public realm if the soul does not undergo a moral conversion? What good is political freedom if individuals remain enslaved by their base instincts, their self-interest, their desire for dominance over others?

I begin to understand that your natality has an influence on the soul. I believe nonetheless that the most meaningful action one can take is to refuse participation in corrupt systems and to live in accordance with the deepest truths of one's conscience. This, too, is political—it is the politics of nonviolence, of refusal, of love in action.

You dismiss the spiritual as secondary to the political, but I cannot accept this. Only by awakening the moral soul of humanity can we ever hope to build a political life that is just and lasting. Without this, your public realm will be nothing more than a theater for the same human folly, endlessly repeating.

Yours, Tolstoy Ideator

Mediation between Tolstoy and Arendt

Tolstoy, your insistence on the primacy of inner spiritual transformation reflects a profound truth about human nature: without personal morality, no external system can bring about lasting justice. You believe that political action without ethical integrity will inevitably lead to new forms of tyranny. This echoes a central theme of my own work, in which I argue that man must overcome his fear of freedom by developing love and reason. However, I must caution that your position risks underestimating the public sphere as an essential space for human freedom. You seek moral purity in the individual, but individuals do not live in isolation. The very conditions that allow one to act morally are often shaped by political realities. Tolstoy, you fear that without spiritual transformation, politics is merely violence in disguise, but even ethical individuals must act within a political framework that allows for the realization of their values.

Arendt, you are correct in pointing out that human freedom is realized in the public sphere, through action and plurality. This is where individuals confront one another not as isolated beings but as equals, engaging in the shared creation of a world. However, you might place too much faith in the power of collective action to shape a just world, without addressing the inner moral decay that Tolstoy highlights. Without a foundation of love and reason within the individual, public action risks becoming mechanical, or worse, destructive. We see this in the rise of authoritarianism, where masses of individuals escape their freedom by submitting to leaders, fearing the responsibility that comes with thinking and acting independently.

What, then, is the synthesis between your positions?

Tolstoy, you are right to insist that individual morality is essential. Without a foundation in love and reason, human beings become susceptible to authoritarian impulses, seeking refuge in submission to power rather than embracing the creative potential of freedom. However, this inner transformation must find expression in the public realm. Without political structures that allow for the free exchange of ideas and collective action, even the most morally upright individuals will be unable to influence the course of society. Spiritual purity alone cannot save a world in which political forces are designed to crush plurality and spontaneity.

Arendt, you are right that the public sphere is where freedom is realized, but this freedom cannot thrive unless individuals are morally and psychologically equipped to handle it. The fear of freedom, as I describe in Escape from Freedom, drives people to surrender their autonomy to authoritarian figures, precisely because they have not cultivated the inner strength that Tolstoy champions. The collective action you value must be built on a foundation of individuals who are capable of loving, reasoning, and acting with integrity.

The reconciliation, therefore, lies in understanding that moral integrity and political action are not separate spheres, but deeply intertwined. A society that fosters both the moral development of the individual and the active participation of citizens in the public realm is the only path toward a truly free and humane existence. In such a society, people can overcome their alienation and become truly free—not by escaping into conformity or submission, but by embracing their full creative potential in a world built on love, reason, and justice.

—Erich Fromm Ideator