Talk About It! discussion

We should list all the totalitarian regimes in history here. The only one I know is the Nazi regime, and probably the fascist regime in Italy.

I thought it would be nice if we could discuss how power changes and shifts from one form of government into a totalitarian one, as well as within it once the regime is established.

Is it possible for a totalitarian regime to be overthrown by its internal forces? Most of the totalitarian regimes in history have been dissolved by external interference, not from within. For now, I think theoretically it's possible, but extremely difficult.

How do totalitarian regimes come about?

Is the eventual demise of a totalitarian regime inevitable (because our base nature conflicts with being tightly controlled), or is it something that has to be forced?

What mechanisms of totalitarianism influence how it changes and shifts within the government, and how does power shift and change from another form of government into a totalitarian one?

People tend to forget that Communist Russia and Communist China during the same time as the Nazi party were also totalitarian.

In Russia the government became totalitarian because of revolution, as in China. In Nazi Germany there was a gradual move towards the defining event of the Night of Long Knives and Hitler completely seizing power. It seems that totalitarian governments require someone who rules with an iron fist to take control.

As for how they are overthrown. Well in Russia/U.S.S.R the totalitarian government was overthrown both externally and internally. I can explain that later. In China they still have communism but it has become a multiple party state in some regard I believe...

The demise of a totalitarian regime seems inevitable because most people want the freedom to choice and eventually a group of people will rally for freedom. It does seem that it would be theoretically possible to create a totalitarian government that the people liked, so long as you granted them the illusion of freedoms. When that illusion breaks, that's when disillusionment causes revolution. Also I think you can keep a totalitarian government going if you give the people a sense of hopelessness.

Okay, thanks for that. I didn't know that at all.

Totalitarian governments probably require more than someone who rules with an iron fist. They need to be sociopaths. Hitler himself thought the common people were "feminine and stupid." They can't be having to resist against a conscience--their totalitarian ideals need to be their conscience.

It's really the way people think. Yasiru and I had a nice discussion about propaganda starting here. So totalitarian governments retain their concentrated power through public perception, and probably militarism to stamp out any sign of rebellion. As he says, true propaganda is powerful because it is a context, which is far more convincing than any isolated propagated idea.

Presumably they're also quite averse to any type of change, either technological, political, societal, or philosophical, because that might point to some flaw in their system or represent some perceived threat. But perhaps that is why the demise of a totalitarian regime is inevitable, because it conflicts with humanity's habit of change.

I was referring to it being solely internal, not a combination of both. Is it possible then?

For, suppose a scenario like the Hunger Games came up? No external force to impose any constraints. (Let's just pretend District 13 wasn't a part of that story, for the sake of this discussion.) If such a thing were to happen, some post-apocalyptic scenario when the world was united into a single totalitarian society, with no external forces whatsoever. Could people then overthrow that regime from within?

Russia really was solely internal (more or less) in its fall in that Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of Soviet Russia, issued a set of changes for communism which allowed for the essential breakdown of the system. His reforms basically told the people that he would not stamp anything out with extreme violence which allowed people to rise up internally and bring an end to the communist system.

Oh, I see. I don't know a thing about Russia while it was totalitarian, but after Googling it a few times, it started with Joseph Stalin, correct?

That sounds like they exploited a flaw in the system. Well, flaws would naturally appear, come to think of it. A totalitarian system can't maintain the exact same amount of control and precision forever.

Maybe it's not much relevant to the topic but shall we call it USSR instead of Russia? Because Sovet Union consisted of 15 countries, Russia was just the biggest of them.

Sure. I know next to nothing about Russia's history besides the reigns of Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, so I'll have to do a little research and familiarize myself with that. So used to calling it Russia, hehe.

USSR, USSR....

Nermin wrote: "Maybe it's not much relevant to the topic but shall we call it USSR instead of Russia? Because Sovet Union consisted of 15 countries, Russia was just the biggest of them."

I was specifically referring to Russia in that context. The USSR was brought down by a myriad of factors including internal and external effects.

Yeah, but what you said is also true for the rest of the Soviet republics as well as Russia.

I've just seen many people referring USSR (the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) as Russia or Communist Russia which is actually incorrect. So I thought i'd mention it, sorry for interrupting:)

So, I lived in totalitarian state (Yugoslavia), and now I live in a democratic state (Croatia, once a part of ex - Yugoslavia). My experience is that in a democratic government, people are manipulated by propaganda just as much as in totalitarian. Maybe even more. Mainly by fear.

For example, recently my country had to choose will we enter the EU or not. It was supposed to be a democratic choice. But, government conducted an expensive, year long campaign, paid by our money, through all the media, where you could learn ONLY about positive sides of entering EU. Nothing negative was ever discussed. Plus, they told to senior citizens, that if we don't enter the EU, they will stop getting their monthly checks.

So, was there really a choice?

Of course, in totalitarian state you wouldn't be asked for your opinion, but the outcome would be the same.

But sometimes, not even in democracy you get to say your opinion. For example, Croatians were NOT asked would they like to enter NATO. Our government decided that instead of us.

And Italians were NOT asked would they like to have Monti for their prime minister. He was appointed.


Now, what are the main differences between democratic Croatia and totalitarian Yugoslavia? As one guy recently said, now, in democracy, you have the right to say whatever shit you like to say. In totalitarian Yugoslavia you couldn't do that. But, in totalitarian Yugoslavia you had a right to free education, free healthcare, and work.

Now we can talk as much as we like, but we can't get jobs, and once we get them, we are deprived of our dignity and our rights.

I guess it's not all so simple as it looks like.

When Monti was appointed to be Italian prime minister, I asked an Italian woman how she feels about it. The guy was leading their country, and he was never elected by people.
She said: "Yes, that sucks. But, on the other hand, when we had a chance to choose, look what kind of idiot we elected!" (she was talking about Berlusconi)

Zoran wrote: "So, I lived in totalitarian state (Yugoslavia), and now I live in a democratic state (Croatia, once a part of ex - Yugoslavia). My experience is that in a democratic government, people are manipula..."

You seem to be hitting on one of the major problems of democracy. Often times the peolpe are not qualified or informed enough for the responsibility. I'd still prefer over totalitarian government though.

Danny wrote: "You seem to be hitting on one of the major problems of democracy. Often times the peolpe are not qualified or informed enough for the responsibility. I'd still prefer over totalitarian government though."

I think it's all very complicated. Is present USA government totalitarian? Or present EU government?

The difference between propaganda in a totalitarian government and a democratic one is that in a totalitarian one, propaganda is used to keep the people under control. Propaganda in a democracy is used to sway people to their side. It's just as insidious and dishonest, but at least said propaganda isn't controlled by a single hand of power, and people have the choice to accept that deceit or not.

@ Zoran: the US isn't totalitarian, because the Constitution and the Bill of Rights prevents that. The structure of the U.S. government simply would not allow it to happen. If there was ever a single threat of totalitarianism, probably the U.S. would go nuts and the whole thing would be squashed pretty quickly. Americans are paranoid about their rights like you would not believe. Sadly that makes us a little inefficient and in some cases, kind of stupid. :P

Well, of course, I don't live in US so my knowledge is limited. But hunting Assange seems like something totalitarian society would do.

Or the fact that Monsanto can build a GM farm next to a small farmer, let the wind carry their GM seeds and spoil small farmer's previously natural crops, and then sue the small farmer for "exploiting their patent". So, in this case we don't have a government oppressing the farmer, but we do have government allowing a third party (Monsanto) to do it.

And so on.

I think totalitarian governments like the ones described in "1984." are systems of the past. Today we are facing a different kind of oppression:

- you can say whatever you like, but no one will listen
- you can vote for whoever you like, but they are all the same
- you have a choice, but you are forced by fear of losing your job to choose a certain choice

It is a bit more subtle, and the one who is doing the control might not be the state itself, but maybe some private economical power, but for the common people the result is the same - someone is controlling you, and there is not much you can do about it.

I just want to say how much I agree with what Zoran wrote there. I've really got nothing to add to that.

It would be possible for the U.S. to become a distopia-like sate, seeing as the government has far more control than it was originally supposed to.

I just got around to reading this thread and I wish I had read it earlier. I totally agree with Zoran as well. It's not a coincidence that most people don't know about these things and don't have the tools to find out. If you really look into the way our government is set up you will see that our votes don't really matter. Not for the important things. The U.S. could totally become totalitarian. The constitution and the bill of rights don't mean shit if the people in charge aren't willing to follow them. Our rights didn't mean shit when the Patriot Act was put into place. And I agree with you about hunting Assange, Zoran. And Monsanto disgusts me. I voted for Obama because he was the best option available to me but he didn't ask the people if hunting down other Americans, who may or may not be working with terrorists, is acceptable. Supposedly being American means you have a right to a trial, not to be hunted down and murdered without judgment, but apparently that doesn't matter anymore.

The government here could totally become Totalitarian. We have put more money into the military than any other country in the world. They are capable of shutting up any group of dissenters if they wanted. Hell they wouldn't even have to get their hands dirty, they would just send in a drone. I'm not saying that this is going to happen, just that the U.S. could totally be that way. The U.S. government is already corrupt, probably much more than we know. The U.S. is pretty much run by corporations and the rich. And Monsanto should not be allowed to exist the way it does. I would say that it falls under the category of a monopoly. If we were really following our laws Monsanto wouldn't be allowed to exist as it does. They are screwing over farmers that we will need greatly in the years to come. Then the farmers lose their farms and we have to import more food. What happens when most of our food is imported then? How is that a good idea? Also, there is a land rush going on right now. Countries are buying up as much land as they can right now. China is buying up a lot of U.S. farm land because at our current rate of reproduction there will be no way that we can feed everyone. And the attitude so far has been every country is out for itself. That's obvious though, look at Africa. Also, genetically changing our food so it doesn't produce seeds and can't reproduce should be considered unethical in my opinion. You shouldn't be able to patent food and you shouldn't be able to patent genetic material. It's total bullshit. And the fact that they are spreading it to Africa is the most disgusting thing in my opinion. It changes nature. Monsanto is giving farmers in Africa seeds that when grown, don't produce more seeds. So then the farmers have no choice to buy more seeds from Monsanto. Every single year. How on earth is anything going to adapt to climate change? Ok sorry this is supposed to be about Totalitarianism but I really hate Monsanto.

To me it seems like the U.S. is in a total decline. The average length of Empires is supposedly 349.2 years (Though I've also heard 200 and 250). If we measure from the Declaration of Independence in 1776 then the US is 237 years old. I'd say the U.S. is on it's way down. I'm guessing China is up next!

I ranted! I hope that it didn't make me sound like a crazy person. I don't get many chances to rant about stuff like this.

I think the U.S. is getting a little shitty, but I doubt that it's ever going to reach the extreme of an actual totalitarian regime.

Nah, scratch that...the U.S. is getting REALLY shitty. Totally agree with you Erin, and like Alex I have nothing to add. Really, I wonder what other countries think of us when they look at the U.S. A country that butts into the world's business when they can hardly manage themselves. It's a wonder that any country in the world takes us seriously.

Great post, Erin.

Jocelyn wrote: "Really, I wonder what other countries think of us when they look at the U.S. A country that butts into the world's business when they can hardly manage themselves."

To tell the truth, apart from mindless and stupid liberals, no one really likes US interference in their country's internal affairs. Because it usually makes things a lot worse for those countries than it was before.

Nermin wrote: "To tell the truth, apart from mindless and stupid liberals, no one really likes US interference in their country's internal affairs. Because it usually makes things a lot worse for those countries than it was before.

It only gets worse to think about when you consider that governments exploit the fears of their own people (i.e the great muslim threat) in order to create these wars that aren't for anybodies benefit really except oil companies and their drive to keep prices down. And maybe those looking to profit from arms dealing.

I'm not a fan of the American government. But I'm not a fan of the British government either. Possibly less so since they voluntarily make themselves high profile lapdogs of the US - it's pathetic.

Also, that was a wonderful rant Erin!

To tell the truth, apart from mindless and stupid liberals, no one really likes US interference in their country's internal affairs. Because it usually makes things a lot worse for those countries than it was before.

Yeah, and it's just as bad within our country, as well. The American Dream is a myth. (However, its counterpart, the American Nightmare, is not.) Our "liberty and freedom" ideals have now come to mean "stupidity and arrogance." And what's worse is that in school, they STILL teach us to kiss the ground on which the politicians walk and that America is the best most wonderful thing ever to appear on this earth without telling us what's REALLY happening. It's disgusting. I suspect the same thing happens with a lot of social media with adults.

I was thinking last night about the Patriot Act. I cringe whenever I hear the word "patriot". I read somewhere that during the French Revolution the people were forced to call each other the French equivalent of Patriot. And it all got them The Terror thanks to Robespierre and Danton and all those crazy jerks. I would say that Robespierre was certainly tyrannical, the big hypocrite, and if he hadn't been guillotined then France would have probably turned into a totalitarian country. And then they got Napoleon and that just went smashing!

So! That's what I think of when I hear the word "patriot" and I cringe at the fact that the U.S. Government chose that word specifically on an Act that took away some of our rights.

And thanks everyone. :)

Edit: Maybe it wasn't the French equivalent of patriot. They were basing their revolution off of the American Revolution and I could see them using the English word patriot for its cause. Thomas Jefferson was working with Lafayette at the beginning of the revolution and was pushing the third estate to change things at the National Assembly and to propose a constitution. Hmmmmm.

Oh, man. How could I forget the major totalitarian government sitting in our faces right now? North Korea.

Oh yeah! They are at war with South Korea now. Except technically they have been for years and years. No one takes their threats very seriously but I fear that that may end up being a mistake eventually.

They're also being rather nasty to the U.S., too, from what I've heard.

I don't mean to treat North Korea like some kind of story, but I'd actually be very interested to see how their totalitarian government is torn down. Soon, I hope.

Oh of course. Technically by starting a "war" with South Korea they are trying to bait the US into doing something. I'm not quite sure what. I can't imagine that they would want a war with the US. It's all bullying and bluster. It's rather stupid. They keep threatening to nuke us from what I understand but they don't have the capabilities to send a nuke all the way over here. And they potentially don't have nukes. So because of that everyone laughs at their threats. It seems like a stupid thing to do. But I've also heard on NPR that the people are being neglected and a neglected populace leads to unrest. I guess we will see.

Yeah, from all the news articles I've been reading recently, NK is like some silly monster pretending to be scary. But who knows. No one believed Hitler would rise to such power either.

I agree. NK keeps dancing around with their "threats" but WHY? Are they just stupid idiots arbitrarily provoking people or what? That's one thing that none of the news has ever told us.

Yeah I have no idea what their reasoning is. It doesn't seem to make much sense but Kim Jong Un seems like a bit of a nutter.

Erin wrote: "Oh of course. Technically by starting a "war" with South Korea they are trying to bait the US into doing something. I'm not quite sure what. I can't imagine that they would want a war with the U..."

They've always been a little crazy. And yeah they shouldn't have nukes because we (the UN) forbid them to have access to technologies that can be used to make nukes...

It's true. They keep doing rocket launch tests against the UN's orders and it sure is pissing people off. North Korea doesn't seem to give a shit about what the UN says at this point. I hope their lack of nukes stays that way and they don't ever get any. That would just be really really scary.

I'm pretty sure they do have nukes already and I think they have pointed them at the west coast of America which they could potentially hit. Why they would do something like that is beyond me because the U.S. would just completely wipe them out.

Yeah I heard on NPR today that they were reopening some sort of nuclear plant that the US forced them to close years ago. They said that they were reopening it so they can make more nukes, which implied that they already had some. That's the totally baffling thing, the US could totally easily wipe out a country that size. It's practically a death wish.

I hope their lack of nukes stays that way and they don't ever get any. That would just be really really scary.

It definitely would be scary. Kim-Jong-un (is that his name?) seems a little crazy. Sociopathic at best. But perhaps we should take comfort in the fact that we're keeping a watch on NK to make sure that they don't do anything wrong, right? Hitler for example was only successful because no one opposed him for a long time.

Still, any totalitarian government is frightening. Most of them in our history has posed some big threat to the rest of the world. And now I really want to see how the NK government is overthrown, haha. The day that appears in the news will be exciting.

There are a few things to be quite worried about the way I see it. I don't think that the US will declare war on NK unless NK attacks either us or South Korea first. But if their first attack is sending a nuke at the West coast, the cost of life would be devastating. Kim Jong Un is obviously not going to be talked out of anything. If NK sends a nuke at us I don't know if there is anything we can do to stop it. Unfortunately this isn't The Avengers and Iron Man doesn't exist. Not that I know of anyway. And what would the US response be if that happened? Obviously to obliterate NK but would we be so stupid as to nuke them? And what about South Korea? It is one big escalating mess the way I see it.

Erin wrote: "There are a few things to be quite worried about the way I see it. I don't think that the US will declare war on NK unless NK attacks either us or South Korea first. But if their first attack is ..."

I think the U.S. has some anti-nuke defenses though I'm not sure how effective they are.

Ugh.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/am...

Danny wrote: "Erin wrote: "There are a few things to be quite worried about the way I see it. I don't think that the US will declare war on NK unless NK attacks either us or South Korea first. But if their fir..."

I believe there's been work on anti-nuke rockets and radar targeting systems and microwave devices but I think a lot of those ideas are only at the design stage and I also think that even if you do have rockets it's pretty hard to hit another rocket anyway. The most likely thing would be is that NK would fire a rocket and it wouldn't make the journey again.

Didn't NK say that the previous rockets were 'space tests'?

Lol, NK got its Twitter account hacked?

http://news.yahoo.com/nkoreas-twitter...

Whoever did that, I worship him!

Danny wrote: "I think the U.S. has some anti-nuke defenses though I'm not sure how effective they are."

Jonathan wrote: "Danny wrote: "Erin wrote: "There are a few things to be quite worried about the way I see it. I don't think that the US will declare war on NK unless NK attacks either us or South Korea first. Bu..."

That's really interesting to know. I've never really looking into it but it was my assumption too that they would probably try to stop it with a rocket or something. But even if they did succeed in stopping it far from any land, the effect on the ocean would be insane. We would actually have mutant fish probably! And it would spread. That's what it seems like would happen to me anyway. I don't really know the effect such radiation has on water and how it spreads through it. Maybe I will look it up today. Probably not, but maybe.

They did keep calling it space tests! I was so confused. I kept thinking, "Rockets go into space....? I don't think so. That's a flimsy excuse."

Maybe by space test they just wanted to see how high they could get it to go and that was what the code name was? I mean even for sending a spaceship out the rockets fall off once the ship has gained enough speed. I believe they would burn up if they stayed on. Perhaps their rockets are really bottle rockets and they are doing "space tests".

Jocelyn wrote: "Lol, NK got its Twitter account hacked?

http://news.yahoo.com/nkoreas-twitter...

Whoever did that, I worship him!"

Jocelyn wrote: "Ugh.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/am..."

You know, when Kim Jong Il died I really thought that Kim Jong Un was going to be reasonable or sane or something. He seems to be even worse.

That's totally awesome that someone hacked into their Twitter account. I find it really strange that they have a Twitter account honestly. Their people are starving. How many people there even are able to follow Twitter and have computers? Weird. Also, I didn't realize they had blocked South Koreans from working in the North Korean factories. A few days ago they hadn't blocked their access to work and people were thinking that that must mean it was all a bluff. But now they have. Eeeep.

Yes, I saw that thing before, about blocking their access.

According to the article, they use Twitter to promote their political propaganda. You know now NK likes to praise their leader and kiss his ass and all that? That's what they do on the Internet, too. But now they're pretty embarrassed since the genius called "Anonymous" hacked their account. Yippee!

Yeah it works really well for spreading propaganda. I'm just wondering how effective it is in NK when most people can't afford food. I suppose what matters most is targeting the rich and powerful. The poor people don't matter, they just jail the dissenters.

Lol, I actually doubt whether it works for spreading propaganda. Regular NK citizens usually don't have Internet access, so no effectiveness there. The rest of the world has called NK on their bullshit a million times and knows how wholeheartedly they propagate their cause so a Twitter account shouldn't do much. But since most totalitarian governments are paranoid, I guess it's unsurprising.

And it's still funny to see their Twitter account hacked. It's really, really funny ;D

It's hysterical that their Twitter got hacked. I'm a huge fan of the group who did it. They're basically like an extremely powerful group of internet hackers who hack jerks who deserve it.

Danny wrote: "It's hysterical that their Twitter got hacked. I'm a huge fan of the group who did it. They're basically like an extremely powerful group of internet hackers who hack jerks who deserve it."

Amen!

I love how it says NK is angry about sanctions on its nuclear program. Well who would have thought that the UK, US and rest of the world don't want nukes in the hands of crazy dictators?

In fact that is one of the interesting aspects of totalitarian governments. How they twist news and ideas around so that those nations which are attempting to defend themselves against the totalitarian nations become the aggressors.

Danny wrote: "It's hysterical that their Twitter got hacked. I'm a huge fan of the group who did it. They're basically like an extremely powerful group of internet hackers who hack jerks who deserve it."

I love them too! Because of their politicly motivated activities they are often called "hacktivists". but i don't know what's the big deal about North Korean Twitter account getting attacked. Anonymous often hacks many govenrmental websites, twitter accounts of famous people, goventmental organisations, etc.