Features of Totalitarianism Poll

[Revoltingest]

Hmm...you clearly need a catchy nickname then. Probably something involving the word 'pound'.

This is fast becoming the weirdest conversation I've had on RF. Which is really saying something!

 

[Stevicus]

"Totalitarianism" is a scare word and is something we have strong negative associations with governments such as the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany.

I think it's difficult to compare the two regimes, although the Soviet Union softened many of its policies and evolved somewhat after Stalin's death. I think the problem with both of those countries were that they had been ruled by authoritarian governments previously (Germany had the Kaiser and the Russians had the Tsar), so it was easy for their people to look upon Hitler and Stalin in the same light - as the "great, infallible leader." Nazi Germany lived under the principle of Führerprinzip, which meant that his word was above all written law and could not be challenged.

I think that's one aspect of totalitarianism which is the most troubling to me, since it revolves around a single leader who is considered infallible and who is essentially "dictator for life," with no elections, term limits, or any other way of transferring power other than assassination or coup. I could never support that. There can never be only one person in charge for life. I don't even think the Soviet Union was supposed to be that way, but Stalin pretty much pre-empted and purged everyone else who might oppose him. But after Stalin's death, Khrushchev didn't have the same level of power (and was eventually deposed by the Central Committee), and Brezhnev had even less power (and had been getting old and sick towards the late 1970s).

Both regimes also tried to justify their policies by saying "there are enemies all around us," which wasn't entirely untrue, but that's only because the other countries were seeing what kind of people were in charge in Germany and Russia and became deathly afraid of them. Fear and induced paranoia among the masses is the greatest fuel which powers totalitarianism. As a result, people will clamor for a leader whom they believe is tough and strong - someone who doesn't take any guff or back talk. Trouble is, once they declare a "temporary state of emergency," the "emergency" never seems to end.

On a more practical level, totalitarianism might work for a while as a quick and dirty way to get things done in a society. As Al Capone put it "you get much farther with a kind word and a gun than just a kind word." Stalin and Hitler took that principle to extreme and monstrous proportions. But to be sure, they were able to marshal their resources and populations and built up some extremely powerful war machines. It's just lucky for us (here in the West) that these two monstrous regimes fought each other.

Another thing both regimes had in common was that their existence was also justified by the notion that they're doing it all "for their people." But "the people" is more of an abstraction, a collective entity, where individuals are merely cells within a giant organism of an all-encompassing State. But there was also a lot of infighting within both party hierarchies, filled with opportunists wanting to feather their own nests - or use their power to settle old personal grudges. Even if you're a loyal, patriotic subject of the State and even if you think the "leader" is a great guy, you're still vulnerable to some malicious party hack who has just enough power to make your life a living hell.