3 ms·

I think it is highly unlikely that a totalitarian government could be stable over an unlimited amount of time if the majority of the population does not approve

I think it is highly unlikely that a totalitarian government could be stable over an unlimited amount of time if the majority of the population does not approve... even if we have an orwellian dystopia, at some point someone of the "inner party" will decide that he can overthrow the powers that be with the aid of the population and become the next "great leader", which will lead to struggle, chaos, perhaps civil war and and eventually reset

Santosh83 6y ago
How will the majority fight back when they are given drugs to control behaviour or controlled by brain-computer devices?
- hyperdimension 6y ago
  I'd suggest reading Brave New World or The Last Book Ever Written to explore those two ideas, respectively. The latter is a bit more kid-friendly, and you might consider it a little prescient for its time. Also, not trying to be on a high horse here (hey, I'm posting this on HN...) you might find that the people are merely offered the drugs and brain-computer devices and they make their own decisions about the two. There's a fantastic comic (no link, sorry) comparing Orwell's future to Huxley's future that's remarkably relevant. EDIT: link - https://biblioklept.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/huxley-orwell-amusing-ourselves-to-death.jpg https://biblioklept.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/huxley-orwel... I forgot, but it gets even better when, at the bottom, you notice the book is also from an even more prescient book, Amusing Ourselves To Death by Neil Postman. I believe it came out around the "golden era" of TV, but again I don't think all that much has changed. We're still the same humans with the same flaws. I should stop there; I'll start giving out spoilers. Read the books. :)
082349872349872 6y ago
That is exactly why in the actual Orwellian dystopia of 1984, the inner party doesn't bother controlling the proles (85+% of the population) nor does it necessarily police itself (2%) much, but instead focuses strong ideological control on the outer party (<13%). It's all in Goldstein, not the fast-forward.
- arethuza 6y ago
  How better to identify those members of the Inner Party likely to rebel than by telling them the truth ("The object of power is power").
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    Rebellion is for the outers, who otherwise are kept well away from the greasy pole. Inners (having received A*'s and been Oxbridge material[1]) may simply jockey for power by playing "party games." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r5rTPB6MCM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r5rTPB6MCM [1] NB one of the shockers Huxley gratuitously throws into BNW: in the far future, Eton has a headmistress.
    - arethuza 6y ago
      This reminds me that I really should read The Rise of the Meritocracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy
      - 082349872349872 6y ago
        Thank ye. Maybe I'll take a shufty as well. In Yes, Minister the Civil Service mixed strategy for retaining comprehensive education involves telling Labour governments selective education would be divisive, while telling Tory governments that it would be expensive. Compare https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24727183 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24727183 or, on the meritocratic front, possibly even https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24069572 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24069572 ==== Conspiracy theory: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24737728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24737728 examines the reliability of Smith's narration. (I am unconvinced by the concept of totalitarian dystopias torturing for six whole chapters as if they were schoolboy bullies with nowhere better to be. In practice they only torture if they think they can gain useful information, and dispose of everyone else rapidly. Is O'Brien's time really worth that little? In a historical dictatorship, Smith would've had a one way helicopter ride from the rented flat to somewhere between Clacton-on-sea and Margate. Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev musing on his cancellation in 1964, the year after JFK's: > "Let them cope by themselves. I've done the main thing. Could anyone have dreamed of telling Stalin that he didn't suit us anymore and suggesting he retire? Not even a wet spot would have remained where we had been standing. Now everything is different. The fear is gone, and we can talk as equals. That's my contribution." )
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
I want to agree, but a big counterpoint right now is North-Korea, which has been under a totalitarian government for over 50 years now; the majority of the population is completely isolated and (if it's the right term) brainwashed. Sure, there's an underground where technology and media are passed around, but as far as I'm aware, there's no signs of collapse. I mean I don't believe it's particularly stable, in that if the great leader is deposed there will be a power vacuum. I was kinda expecting that when Kim Jong-il died though.
- RobertoG 6y ago
  North-Korea is not really an historical exception and it has not to be specially unstable without external intervention. How much different is it its governance from, for instance, the Ramses dynasty? This kind of thing is as old as humanity. Well, not really, let's say that it's as old as the neolithic.
- eru 6y ago
  I guess stability is a probabilistic thing? Perhaps there was an 80% chance of collapse when Kim Jong-il died, but the regime just got lucky?
- octoberfranklin 6y ago
  North Korea is only stable because China props it up. If the whole world were like North Korea there would be no external entity to do the propping-up.

Santosh83 6y ago

How will the majority fight back when they are given drugs to control behaviour or controlled by brain-computer devices?

hyperdimension 6y ago
I'd suggest reading Brave New World or The Last Book Ever Written to explore those two ideas, respectively. The latter is a bit more kid-friendly, and you might consider it a little prescient for its time. Also, not trying to be on a high horse here (hey, I'm posting this on HN...) you might find that the people are merely offered the drugs and brain-computer devices and they make their own decisions about the two. There's a fantastic comic (no link, sorry) comparing Orwell's future to Huxley's future that's remarkably relevant. EDIT: link - https://biblioklept.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/huxley-orwell-amusing-ourselves-to-death.jpg https://biblioklept.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/huxley-orwel... I forgot, but it gets even better when, at the bottom, you notice the book is also from an even more prescient book, Amusing Ourselves To Death by Neil Postman. I believe it came out around the "golden era" of TV, but again I don't think all that much has changed. We're still the same humans with the same flaws. I should stop there; I'll start giving out spoilers. Read the books. :)

082349872349872 6y ago

That is exactly why in the actual Orwellian dystopia of 1984, the inner party doesn't bother controlling the proles (85+% of the population) nor does it necessarily police itself (2%) much, but instead focuses strong ideological control on the outer party (<13%). It's all in Goldstein, not the fast-forward.

arethuza 6y ago
How better to identify those members of the Inner Party likely to rebel than by telling them the truth ("The object of power is power").
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  Rebellion is for the outers, who otherwise are kept well away from the greasy pole. Inners (having received A*'s and been Oxbridge material[1]) may simply jockey for power by playing "party games." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r5rTPB6MCM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r5rTPB6MCM [1] NB one of the shockers Huxley gratuitously throws into BNW: in the far future, Eton has a headmistress.
  - arethuza 6y ago
    This reminds me that I really should read The Rise of the Meritocracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy
    - 082349872349872 6y ago
      Thank ye. Maybe I'll take a shufty as well. In Yes, Minister the Civil Service mixed strategy for retaining comprehensive education involves telling Labour governments selective education would be divisive, while telling Tory governments that it would be expensive. Compare https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24727183 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24727183 or, on the meritocratic front, possibly even https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24069572 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24069572 ==== Conspiracy theory: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24737728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24737728 examines the reliability of Smith's narration. (I am unconvinced by the concept of totalitarian dystopias torturing for six whole chapters as if they were schoolboy bullies with nowhere better to be. In practice they only torture if they think they can gain useful information, and dispose of everyone else rapidly. Is O'Brien's time really worth that little? In a historical dictatorship, Smith would've had a one way helicopter ride from the rented flat to somewhere between Clacton-on-sea and Margate. Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev musing on his cancellation in 1964, the year after JFK's: > "Let them cope by themselves. I've done the main thing. Could anyone have dreamed of telling Stalin that he didn't suit us anymore and suggesting he retire? Not even a wet spot would have remained where we had been standing. Now everything is different. The fear is gone, and we can talk as equals. That's my contribution." )

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

I want to agree, but a big counterpoint right now is North-Korea, which has been under a totalitarian government for over 50 years now; the majority of the population is completely isolated and (if it's the right term) brainwashed. Sure, there's an underground where technology and media are passed around, but as far as I'm aware, there's no signs of collapse. I mean I don't believe it's particularly stable, in that if the great leader is deposed there will be a power vacuum. I was kinda expecting that when Kim Jong-il died though.

RobertoG 6y ago
North-Korea is not really an historical exception and it has not to be specially unstable without external intervention. How much different is it its governance from, for instance, the Ramses dynasty? This kind of thing is as old as humanity. Well, not really, let's say that it's as old as the neolithic.
eru 6y ago
I guess stability is a probabilistic thing? Perhaps there was an 80% chance of collapse when Kim Jong-il died, but the regime just got lucky?
octoberfranklin 6y ago
North Korea is only stable because China props it up. If the whole world were like North Korea there would be no external entity to do the propping-up.