Generic autocracy Vs totalitarianism

[hardcore_gamer]

In modern days, many people casually use the world totalitarianism to describe all kinds of states and regimes that are considered dictatorships. The problem I have with this however is that I feel the world totalitarianism has been given the fascism treatment, in that it's just become a bad label that is casually applied to everyone that the user of the word doesn't like.

So this started to make me think...what IS the difference between a generic dictatorship/autocracy and a totalitarian state? The more ignorant and simple people will insist that "it's all the same stuff", but I think this is a really ignorant and a simple minded approch to history. France under Napolen was a autocracy, and so was Russia under Stalin. But that doesn't make the 2 societies the same. It's like saying apples and oranges are the same because both are fruit.

From my observation, there appear to be 4 things (perhaps more that you can list?) that seperate a totalitarian state from a generic autocracy.

The traits of a generic autorcracy:

1. Has an all-powerful leader or council that is not subject to democratic elections, or the regime may be democratic offically but rigs elections in it's favor making them worthless.

2. Is not subject to any real laws and the power is not limited, or if there are any laws they are easily ignored or trampled all over.

3. The press is under state control with no freedom of press, or is at least heavily regulated.

4. Political enemies are hunted down and/or harrased, and freedom of speech is suppressed.

Example: Zimbabwe under Robert mugabe.

In addition to all the traits of a generic autocracy, I also feel that a totalitarian state has the fallowing traits as well which the generic autocracy (typically) lacks:

1. A strong personality cult (not strictly needed, but still a classic trait of a totalitarian regime) which glorifies the regime's offical leader to a point of giving him an almost diety like status.

2. The state assumes control of every aspect of life in one way or another and is able to enforce those rules. While all autocracies suppress individual freedoms in one way or another, what seperates the totalitarian state from the generic autocracy is that it can do this on a literal moment to moment bases, with the population constantly feeling like the state is breathing down their neck.

3. The state is everywhere. In addition to regulating almost everything, the state also makes sure that people never forget that it exists by throwing propaganda at people everywhere they turn, with posters, propaganda speakers, flags etc.

4. The ability to mass mobilize the population. In a totalitarian state, the state doesn't just control the people, the state IS the people. The massive amount of control a totalitarian state has over society allows it to mass mobilize the nation's population in a way that a generic autocracy would not be able to do.

Example: The Soviet Union under Josef Stalin.

That's all I can think of for the moment. Do you agree or disagree with my point about there being a big difference between a generic autocracy and a totalitarian state? And are there any extra points you would like to add to what I mentioned already?

What are your thoughts on the "generic autocracy Vs totalitarian state" debate?

 

[Traitorfish]

The state assumes control of every aspect of life in one way or another and is able to enforce those rules.

Is this not as good, in practice, as saying that "totalitarianism is impossible"? No state is capable of controlling ever aspect of life; at best, it can hope to encourage internalised discipline, but that seems to me very different, not least because it leaves the nature of the discipline open to a degree of distinctly un-totalitarian discipline. Certainly an autocratic regime would struggle to enforce any so rigid and universal order: no one person has that much time, let alone mental capacity.

I mean, you take the example of the Soviet Union under Stalin, but that place was in a lot of ways deeply chaotic. People were motivated by terror of the state's sudden and semi-arbitrary wrath, not by a belief that it was actually capable of observing and controlling them. Soviet "totalitarianism", if such a thing exists, was to a significant extent an organic response to a lack of political stability combined with a powerful coercive state, something that people inflicted on themselves and each other, rather than which was inflicted on them by the regime alone.

 

[James Stuart]

Is this not as good, in practice, as saying that "totalitarianism is impossible"? No state is capable of controlling ever aspect of life; at best, it can hope to encourage internalised discipline, but that seems to me very different, not least because it leaves the nature of the discipline open to a degree of distinctly un-totalitarian discipline. Certainly an autocratic regime would struggle to enforce any so rigid and universal order: no one person has that much time, let alone mental capacity.

I mean, you take the example of the Soviet Union under Stalin, but that place was in a lot of ways deeply chaotic. People were motivated by terror of the state's sudden and semi-arbitrary wrath, not by a belief that it was actually capable of observing and controlling them. Soviet "totalitarianism", if such a thing exists, was to a significant extent an organic response to a lack of political stability combined with a powerful coercive state, something that people inflicted on themselves and each other, rather than which was inflicted on them by the regime alone.

I was coming here, in fact, to argue that totalitarianism is impossible. Even theorists who believe it to exist tend to limit it to Nazi Germany and the USSR, with Italy sometimes described as "semi-totalitarian."

I will not dispute, for one second, that there are states out there which subscribe to totalitarian philosophies; North Korea, Eritrea, ISIL. I do not, however, believe them to be capable of pursuing a genuine totalitarian policy. Nor do I believe that the USSR and Nazi Germany did so. They were simply strong autocratic governments with totalitarian ideals, not actual totalitarian regimes.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

Is this not as good, in practice, as saying that "totalitarianism is impossible"? No state is capable of controlling ever aspect of life

I think this is a bit of a strawman towards the totalitarian idea. No the state can't always 100% enforce everything always, you could bash almost every other political or economical idea with this argument. I could just as easily say that because not every politician 100% represents the whole population democracy hasn't "truly" existed anywhere.

I think it is silly to claim that because there hasn't been a 100% perfect totalitarian state that no totalitarian state has ever existed. North Korea from the looks of it is the closest thing so far from being a pure totalitarian regime. I would even go as far as to argue that it's even more totalitarian than the USSR or Nazi Germany. The documentaries I have seen about that country are horrifying.

snip

Ditto.

 

[James Stuart]

I think this is a bit of a strawman towards the totalitarian idea. No the state can't always 100% enforce everything always, you could bash almost every other political or economical idea with this argument. I could just as easily say that because not every politician 100% represents the whole population democracy hasn't "truly" existed anywhere.

I think it is silly to claim that because there hasn't been a 100% perfect totalitarian state that no totalitarian state has ever existed. North Korea from the looks of it is the closest thing so far from being a pure totalitarian regime. I would even go as far as to argue that it's even more totalitarian than the USSR or Nazi Germany. The documentaries I have seen about that country are horrifying.



Ditto.

I'd probably argue the same thing about North Korea. I would argue, however, that a totalitarian theory does not equal totalitarian practice. If North Korea were truly a totalitarian state, Kim Jong-un wouldn't be on such shaky ground that he feels the need to constantlyy remind his military that he exists.

Perhaps it would be better to say that totalitarianism is impossible within current technological limitations. I would go so far as to argue that even Orwell's Oceania was not totalitarian, merely desirous of being so, so NK doesn't qualify. Give it time.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think this is a bit of a strawman towards the totalitarian idea. No the state can't always 100% enforce everything always, you could bash almost every other political or economical idea with this argument. I could just as easily say that because not every politician 100% represents the whole population democracy hasn't "truly" existed anywhere.

I think it is silly to claim that because there hasn't been a 100% perfect totalitarian state that no totalitarian state has ever existed. North Korea from the looks of it is the closest thing so far from being a pure totalitarian regime. I would even go as far as to argue that it's even more totalitarian than the USSR or Nazi Germany. The documentaries I have seen about that country are horrifying.

You explicitly claim: "the state assumes control of every aspect of life in one way or another and is able to enforce those rules." It's a direct quote; in what way is it a strawman?

You can certainly argue for a totalitarian impulse, but that's not the same thing as totalitarianism as an actual system. You could well argue that the totalitarian impulse is ultimately self-defeating, because the attempt to exert that thorough control tends to render states rigid and ineffective, get afloat more by teror than actual competence. Dictatorships, in particular, tend to assume a certain level of istitutional weakness, so it's in the dictator's very direct interests from allowing anything like a comprehensive "totalitarian" system to emerge. (Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin all provided over systems in which different braches of the state warred for authority, resources and approval, hardly examples of totalitarian unity.)

Maybe you're arguing that totalitarianism is merely an ideal type, rather than anything which has existed historically, but you don't make that very clear, and the direct reference to Stalinist Russia implies that you're talking about this as an historically-observable type.

 

[James Stuart]

Rigid and ineffective might be worth it to a dictator who didn't face any external threats. Hence the world of 1984.

 

[Traitorfish]

Yeah, I mean, we've got to think about what power is actually for, what the people who are using it expect to achieve and how they expect to do so. One of the problems with liberal discussions of totalitarianism or with repressive regimes generally is that they become so preoccupied with the inhumanity of these regimes that they seem to forget that there are actually humans running the show. When the regime is imagined as a coherent and autonomous actor, hell-bent on total domination, it's easy to explain any theory about it with "because: totalitarianism", but in practice these regimes are as fractious as any other, and they can't even be relied upon to keep those fractures purely intra-elite: the Cultural Revolution in China was, in large part, one faction of the regime attempting to mobilise popular support for a palace coup. HG's description of totalitarianism is at this point is entirely abstract, the characteristics of an idea rather than an actual, concrete state comprised from top to bottom of meat-popsicles going about their daily lives. He's giving us a "what it is" but not a "how it works".

 

[Hakim]

When used to describe ideas and ideologies, totalitarian can also mean that the implementation of the idea must be fully completed to reap the benefits.

 

[Tahuti]

The point of totalitarianism is that it seeks to remake society. It also equates the citizens to the state into one organic whole.

 

[James Stuart]

The point of totalitarianism is that it seeks to remake society. It also equates the citizens to the state into one organic whole.

Fascism seeks to remake society. Communism seeks to remake society. Totalitarianism is simply about control. That total control would effectively change any society is simply a by-product of that control.

 

[Tahuti]

Totalitarianism is simply about control

Not just that. Every society is to some extent about control. Totalitarianism is about control of the mind, i.e. believe sincerely in the regime's ideals, without the mental ability to drop out of it, artificially imposed by the state.

 

[Traitorfish]

Fascism seeks to remake society. Communism seeks to remake society. Totalitarianism is simply about control. That total control would effectively change any society is simply a by-product of that control.

Does "totalitarianism is simply about control" actually mean anything? It sounds like good, strident liberalism, "oh, those totalitarians, being all about control and such", but it doesn't describe how any of the people labelled "totalitarians" actually thought. It seems to reduce these regimes to little more than cartoon villains, evil for the sake of evil. Is it useful to talk about the issue in those terms?

 

[jackelgull]

The best real world model for totalitarianism I can think of is the catholic church. It was not adverse to wielding the sword to crush heresy; yet, it was content for the most part to convince individuals to subjugate their conscience to church doctrine and was for the most part one monolithic organization made up of competing actors.

In many ways, totalitarianism seeks only to replace the God of the Church with the State.

 

[James Stuart]

Does "totalitarianism is simply about control" actually mean anything? It sounds like good, strident liberalism, "oh, those totalitarians, being all about control and such", but it doesn't describe how any of the people labelled "totalitarians" actually thought. It seems to reduce these regimes to little more than cartoon villains, evil for the sake of evil. Is it useful to talk about the issue in those terms?

Totalitarianism is about controlling the entire lives of a nation's people. Now it doesn't matter if the reason for that is to make them good little Aryans, good little Bolsheviks, good little fascists, or good little liberals, it's the sheer effort required to subsume someone's entire life in such a way that they cannot even think of resistance to the status quo. Rupert Murdoch has to be at least as totalitarian as Mussolini, and the man is obsessed with the free market and wants to weaken the state more than most anarchists do.

Cartoon villains are awesome. Snidely Whiplash would put both Hitler and Stalin in their place, and beat them in a race to boot.

My love of cartoon villains notwithstanding, I don't think I said much about the motivations of the so-called 'totalitarian' regimes, such as Stalin's USSR, Hitler's Germany, the Kim family's North Korea, etc.. All regimes have different goals and thought processes, even if there is some continuity; most regimes, even democratic ones, seek to perpetuate themselves enough to sacrifice most of their principles. Hitler desired his lebensraum and Aryan superiority. Stalin legitimately believed in communism, even as his actions more resembled those of the darkest of the Tsars, and wanted to usher in the world revolution. The Kim family seems to have originally thought the same, but now they're just a brutal oligarchy desperate to hold onto their power, regardless of the cost. When the methods behind achieving those goals crosses the line to attempting to control, not just influence or lead, an individual's entire life, you have totalitarianism.

The best real world model for totalitarianism I can think of is the catholic church. It was not adverse to wielding the sword to crush heresy; yet, it was content for the most part to convince individuals to subjugate their conscience to church doctrine and was for the most part one monolithic organization made up of competing actors.

In many ways, totalitarianism seeks only to replace the God of the Church with the State.

Maybe on paper, but the Catholic Church was never very monolithic at all. Gallicanism is the most well-known example of a branch of the Church being virtually independent, but similar situations arose in Ireland, England, Germany, Spain, and elsewhere. The Church also never really sought to control a person's entire thought process, just the thoughts that concerned them; the Church really didn't give a damn if you spent all day imagining sodomising a choir-boy, for example, so long as you didn't actually commit the act (a cynic would say because the choir-boy belonged to the priest, and he didn't like to share). A totalitarian regime would try to eliminate such thoughts.

 

[Borachio]

Luckily, I shall never be a totalitarian dictator myself. Not because I've any shortage of good ideas, but because they'd be sure to turn out all wrong if anyone attempted to implement them.

This is a win-win. The world at large wins, since it doesn't have to put up with the results of my failed ideas. And I win, since no-one is going to blame me for putting forward ideas which are going to fail.

Unfortunately, not all potential dictators think like I do. I really have no explanation for why they don't, though.

edit: must be the triumph of hope over experience once again, I suppose.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

Stalin legitimately believed in communism

lol, wut?

The Kim family seems to have originally thought the same

No they did not. Even the original Kim built himself palaces. In fact, even Mao called him out on it it was so insane.

 

[James Stuart]

lol, wut?



No they did not. Even the original Kim built himself palaces. In fact, even Mao called him out on it it was so insane.

To quote the great philosopher, Dr James Wilson: "It is possible to believe in an ideal, and still fail to live up to it." All the evidence indicates that Kim and Stalin - and Mao, since you mentioned him - were true believers who let themselves be corrupted by power. Not simply power-hungry madmen, like ObamaKim Jong-un, Beria, etc..

 

[hardcore_gamer]

To quote the great philosopher, Dr James Wilson: "It is possible to believe in an ideal, and still fail to live up to it." All the evidence indicates that Kim and Stalin - and Mao, since you mentioned him - were true believers who let themselves be corrupted by power. Not simply power-hungry madmen, like ObamaKim Jong-un, Beria, etc..

lol. Do you know anything about Stalin? Even since early age the guy was a lier, a sociapath and a thug. He was nothing but a power hungry criminal from the start. The book "young Stalin" talks about this.

 

[Borachio]

Didn't he start out his adult career as a bank robber?

(After leaving the seminary with his tuition fees unpaid. The guy was plainly psychotic just based on this.)