Talk:Totalitarianism

What in hell
"One of the earlier examples is France under the Jacobins, who followed a form of "Radical egalitarianism", i.e. a vague form of authoritarian proto-socialism"

I don't know where did you get that. It was the time when one of the first communists, Babeuf, tried to start a revolution against the State (controlled by Jacobins) because it helped mostly the rich. There was a level of tax that had to be paid to have the right to vote. They never abolished privated property. The only egalitarian thing was the maximum wage that didn't stay in the law for long. Diacelium (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Criticism of the term not addressed
The term "totalitarianism" has been criticized by people on the (extreme) left quite a bit. Even if this article is to show how that criticism is boneheaded, it should at least mention it. Evil Zionist (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I oppose the merger proposal
The difference between Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism is rather important and should be covered - merging the two articles is counter-productive in that. Evil Zionist (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

stop adding to examples
they are examples, we only need a couple, not an exhaustive list. stop it.

you need help rationalwiki. you have an addiction to lists. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * i repeat - stop adding to an already too long list. and stop adding bullshit to the list too AMassiveGay (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That fictional examples section is asking for drive by BoNs I feel. Animal Farm, probably, noted for its direct allegory to real life. But right now it does come off as a nerd trivia dump. 18:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's an absurd list of examples! It's longer than the article and pretty useless.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we should purge the entire list of fictional totalitarian states, except for 1984, Brave New World and (maybe) The Man in the High Castle. GeeJayK (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we should also add hypothetical scenarios such as Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, Greater Germanic Reich, The New Italian Empire Mussolini was trying to build, various hypothetical world states such as World Caliphate, a World Communist State, etc. Not to mention James Burnham’s managerial state, the singleton, etc. --Jakester499 (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I pruned it. The WH40K example is cheating since that's basically all the factions in that franchise. 02:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Syria and Iraq
the general criteria for totalitarianism is the following:

it must have an ideology it must have censorship it must be a one-party state it must have state terror it must control the economy

Ideology: What kind of Ideology did Saddam and Assad bring? Ba'athism was just a name for the supposed "Ideology", and it's not a hugely polarizing Ideology anyways compared to Marxism-Leninism, Nazism, Fascism, Islamism. I'll give you the next 3. Economy: Saddam and Assad's economies weren't fully controlled, they still had some Market-type stuff in it, hell, even Hitler and Mussolini's economies were more controlled. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Lasha2008 / talk / contribs
 * I already added an authoritative definition to the page. Unless you have a citable authority that is of equal or better quality. I would lay off this argument. For the record, I added:

Carl J. Friedrich and Zbigniew K. Brzezinski in their book Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy summarized the six traits of totalitarian dictatorships as follows: The “syndrome,” or pattern of interrelated traits, of the totalitarian dictatorship consists of an ideology, a single party typically led by one man, a terroristic police, a communications monopoly, a weapons monopoly, and a centrally directed economy. Of these, the last two are also found in constitutional systems…


 * The more complete quote from the book is:

The “syndrome,” or pattern of interrelated traits, of the totalitarian dictatorship consists of an ideology, a single party typically led by one man, a terroristic police, a communications monopoly, a weapons monopoly, and a centrally directed economy. Of these, the last two are also found in constitutional systems: Socialist Britain had a centrally directed economy, and all modern states possess a weapons monopoly. Whether these latter suggest a “trend” toward totalitarianism is a question that will be discussed in our last chapter. These six basic features, which we think constitute the distinctive pattern or model of totalitarian dictatorship, form a cluster of traits, intertwined and mutually supporting each other, as is usual in “organic” systems. They should therefore not be considered in isolation or be made the focal point of comparisons, such as “Caesar developed a terroristic secret police, therefore he was the first totalitarian dictator,” or “the Catholic Church has practiced ideological thought control, therefore not be considered in isolation or be made the focal point of comparisons, such as "Caesar developed a terroristic secret police, tehrefore he was the first totalitarian dictator," or "the Catholic Church has practiced ideological thought control therefore…"


 * Bongolian (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * well, Syria and Iraq don't meet all the criteria that you mentioned. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Lasha2008 / talk / contribs
 * How not? And according to whom? 18:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ideology: What kind of Ideology did Saddam and Assad bring? Ba'athism was just a name for the supposed "Ideology", and it's not a hugely polarizing Ideology anyways compared to Marxism-Leninism, Nazism, Fascism, Islamism.-
 * How is Ba'athism not an ideology? That seems like an awfully subjective position.-Flandres (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well it's certainly not as polarizing as ML, Nazism, Fascism, or Islamism-
 * Okay? What does that have to do with it somehow not being an ideology? If you google ideology you get "a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy," not "is polarizing."-Flandres (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record, Bongolian's definition is by a wide margin the most accepted definition of totalitarianism, even though it's a bit old. GeeJayK (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, how so, and according to whom? 19:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * an Ideology of a regime needs to be polarizing for it to be totalitarian. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Lasha2008 / talk / contribs
 * That is not one of the listed criteria. How is Ba'athism excluded from the listed criteria, and according to whom? 19:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * did Ba'athism bring utopian views that were supposed to explain past present and future? no &mdash; Unsigned, by: Lasha2008 / talk / contribs
 * Actually it did. For starters, do you know what بعث translates as in English?-Flandres (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey nice double red-flag of an apologist: it's not X, but if it were X, it'd not be extreme or that bad. Techpriest (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not an apoligist, I think Saddam and Assad are awful people, all I'm saying is that they weren't totalitarian. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Lasha2008 / talk / contribs
 * "The “syndrome,” or pattern of interrelated traits, of the totalitarian dictatorship consists of an ideology, a single party typically led by one man, a terroristic police, a communications monopoly, a weapons monopoly, and a centrally directed economy. Of these, the last two are also found in constitutional systems…" I tire of repeating myself. How does Ba'athism in Syria and Iraq not meet the criteria laid out by the article, which I have quoted a key element from here? And according to whom does Ba'athism not meet said criteria? 20:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * well, for starters, most academic sources don't consider Iraq and Syria totalitarian. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Lasha2008 / talk / contribs
 * 20:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How so? Which academics? Can you provide citations for such a claim? could provide citations for criteria, which we can then compare those regimes to. Can you do the same?  20:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * another thing is, that Friedrich and Brezinski, the guys "Bongolian" cited, only consider 4 regimes totalitarian, those being the Soviet Union (not just Stalin), Nazi Germany, Communist China, and Fascist Italy Lasha2008 (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * They were writing before Ba'athists took power! Of course they wouldn't include them yet! Do you not even know the chronology of what they were talking about?!-Flandres (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I know that Wikipedia isn't the best of sources, but there's a page on there called, "list of totalitarian regimes" and neither of the Ba'athist nations are on there. there are some nations like Fascist Italy, who aren't on there but keep getting added, and they are removed, but at least they are getting added by many. Iraq and Syria are never added or on the list of that Wikipedia article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_totalitarian_regimes Lasha2008 (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You went radio silent for hours after I asked for a scholarly source of equal or greater credibility than Bongolian's source, and Wikipedia is the best you can do? Are you trolling me? Is this some kind of prank? Further, you have yet to explain how the Assad regime in Syria and the Hussein regime in Iraq fail to meet the existing criteria, and from what scholarly sources you are basing that conclusion off of. Gods and goddesses fucking orally and anally above and below, this is the most basic level of questioning and you're still somehow managing to fuck it up. 03:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

here ya go. https://www.theworldmind.org/home/2018/7/29/saddam-hussein-was-he-the-totalitarian-we-were-led-to-believe Lasha2008 (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC) @GrammarCommie why are you not responding? is it because I have sent you a link to an article which explains why Saddam fails to meet the existing criteria? Lasha2008 (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's past 1:30 where he lives. Have you considered he might be sleeping? 06:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ok sure, it's just that he told me that I went radio silent for hours, in which time I was sleeping myself (but then again, it's my fault for not telling him that I went "radio silent" because I was sleeping). Lasha2008 (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That citation is from an undergraduate magazine, perhaps not the most convincing of sources. There is however:
 * Faust, Aaron M. The Ba'thification of Iraq: Saddam Hussein's Totalitarianism. ISBN 978-1-4773-0557-7. University of Texas Press. 2015.
 * Bongolian (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * https://edspace.american.edu/clocksandclouds/2016/04/01/saddam-hussein-was-he-the-totalitarian-we-were-led-to-believe/ this says the same things, but I feel like it's more reliable because it has "edu" in it's name. Lasha2008 (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * For Hussein's Iraq, we have:
 * Ideology: Ba'athism (pan-Arabism, anti-imperialism, anti-Zionism). Yes, these ideas are divisive.
 * A single party typically led by one man (Saddam's Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Iraq Region)
 * A terroristic police: mukhabarat
 * A communications monopoly (political dissent was illegal)
 * A weapons monopoly
 * The author you cite calls it "totalitarianism lite", presumably based on individuals' ability to own firearms. So what exactly are we arguing about? Bongolian (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * we are arguing about if Iraq is totalitarian. and I think it's only totalitarian lite, because of the firearms thing. Lasha2008 (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a moot point since we don't have such a category as "totalitarianism lite", and since it was clearly a syndrome in Saddam's case. Bongolian (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * well, we do have came close Lasha2008 (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have awoken. To address the weapons concern, most authoritarian and totalitarian regimes control weapons in a very selective way. That is to say that they may loosen restrictions for supporters and tighten access for their opponents. For example, in Nazi Germany it was very easy to acquire a firearm, if you were an ethnic German. If you were anyone else, especially a Jew, it was quite difficult. This was not only due to legislation, but to a climate of fear and distrust. 11:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, but as the article explains, Nazi Germany's extreme utilization of other totalitaran institutions, more than makes up for it. Lasha2008 (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "more than makes up for it"? Do you think that totalitarians need to suppress everyone equally in order to be totalitarian? 16:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * read the fucking article please. Lasha2008 (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I read the "fucking article". You are challenging the article. How the fuck does selective ease of access to arms negate a regime being totalitarian? And according to what sources? 16:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I literally sent you a link of an article you fucking idiot! that's the source! Lasha2008 (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's a link. Here's another link. Are they a substitute for actual arguments? No. Engage more substantially if you wish to make headway. 17:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * the article I sent you was using Friedrich and Brezinski's definitions, which are apparently "the most popular version" Lasha2008 (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Very quippy. Sit your ass down and explain to me how that undergrad article is enough to dispute this wiki's classification of Assad and Hussein as totalitarian. Don't just tell me to read links. Give me a fucking argument. 18:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

the links give you an argument, no? Lasha2008 (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * tbh, I have given up.
 * I agree Saddam is totalitarian. but so is Fascist Italy, so let's add them to the actual list. Lasha2008 (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you the undergrad who wrote that article? If not, then you have to explain how they're relevant. Even if you were the author, you'd still have to explain why they're relevant, because that's how fucking communication works. I can't magically intuit your thoughts, and I can't fucking intuit vague one sentence posts. If you don't put the fucking effort in to lay out your position, do not be surprised when others are unconvinced by it. Fucking hell... 19:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I sent you 2 articles, they say the same things, but one of them has "edu" in it's name, so I thought it was more reliable. Lasha2008 (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear gods you're going to give me an ulcer.... Firstly, it's the same article, it's just published in two different places. Secondly, while you have laid out a premise, you have yet to make an argument. If you have yet to make an argument, we cannot arrive at a conclusion. Here I'll lay it out.
 * Premise; the regimes of Saddam Hussein and Bashar Al-Assad are not totalitarian.
 * Argument; ???? (addendum, citations for argument)
 * Conclusion; ????
 * Do you see how that works? 19:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * didn't I literally say that I gave up, and now think Saddam IS totalitarian? Lasha2008 (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Why did you flip positions? 20:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * because I read more articles on the internet. Lasha2008 (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And how do you know whether those are correct or not? I don't want you to just agree with me, I want you to think critically about the information you absorb. 20:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Totalitarianism has failed everywhere it has been tried
It’s the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.