Talk:Totalitarianism/Archive1
Totalitarianism[edit]
Totalitarianism=
- One Party State
- Official Idealogy
- Secret Police
- No Political Pluralism
- Monopoly on Weapons
- Complete Control of the Media
- Planned Economy
- Cult of Personality
- Media used for propaganda
- Little or no Political corruption
- Complete control over their people's public/private lives
- Use of extreme violence to enforce the law
- Monopoly on Violence
- Mass executions/death penalty
This I think is what totalitarianism is.--Jakester499 (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- The main defining factor of totalitarian regimes (at least according to the stuff I've read) is that the state is not content with "neutral" or "apathetic" stances. In Franco's Spain you could simply stay at home and do your thing. In Nazi Germany you had to go to some Nazi stuff almost every day. The same can be said in the case of religion. Mainline Protestantism in Europe is fine with you showing up for baptism and burial or whatever or not. Fundies and cults want you to make religion the center of your live. And as can be seen by a certain religious group founded in the US, they will hunt you down if you leave and say anything against them... Pizzameister (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Origin of the term[edit]
"The term totalitarian was coined during the Cold War to designate regimes deemed most threatening" The term was actually coined by italian fascists (I believe Gentile), to designate their own regime.
Also, I'm pretty sure totalitarianism is not just a "really repressive tyranny."--93.33.165.37 (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's first use was by Giovanni Amendola in 1923 but when it was in general acceptance is right. It is a very repressive tyranny in that those regimes look to control every aspect of their citizens social life, including the economy, education, art, science, private life, and morals of citizens. Thanks for your opinions but it might be worthwhile to do a little more research. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- You're right and I was wrong, but so is the article itself by saing it was coined during the cold war. Also, I would argue that "controlling every aspect of social life" is a little bit more, and more specific, than "really repressive". Since you're a user here, and know the subject better than the original editor (and me), why don't you edit the article?--93.33.165.37 (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, "really repressive tyranny" is insufficient to describe totalitarianism. Nearly all of the nations on this list fail to meet the definition of a totalitarian state. Totalitarian regimes are motivated by an ideology that provides a simple explanation of the past, present, and future, seek to fundamentally transform society into some kind of utopia, and seek to dominate the minds of citizens. Nearly all of the examples on this list fail to meet these requirements.
- Francisco Franco, for example, was a conservative who co-opted and then defanged the fascist Falange. Totalitarianism is radical, not conservative. The Ba'athist regimes in Iraq and Syria can also hardly be called totalitarian—any ideology espoused by Saddam Hussein and the Assads served as window dressing. I would argue that the only states in modern history which fit the mold are Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, the Soviet Union and some of the Eastern Bloc, Communist China (erroneously referred to as "reformed" in this article despite the fact that Marxism-Leninism remains the regime's operating ideology), and North Korea (which may have transitioned from Stalinism to fascism if one accepts certain descriptions of "Juche"). Imperial Japan possibly fits the definition, but probably does not. Communist states such as Cuba and Vietnam may meet the requirements.
- I hesitate to identify theocracies as totalitarian regimes because religions are sort of their own category, and theocracies are often conservative rather than radical. Note that conservatism and traditionalism are not the same thing. The Taliban and especially ISIS, which both appeal to tradition and the past (as Hitler and Mussolini did) but seek to transform society with modern ideological innovations—can probably be described as totalitarian movements. I would say that certain religions are themselves inherently totalitarian in character, though, such as Christianity, Islam, and Scientology.--Trau (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
What in hell[edit]
"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[edit]
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)