3 ms·

> Totalitarianism is a form of government and political system that prohibits all opposition parties, outlaws individual opposition to the state and its claims,

by im3w1l 5y ago

> Totalitarianism is a form of government and political system that prohibits all opposition parties, outlaws individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control and regulation over public and private life. It is regarded as the most extreme and complete form of authoritarianism. In totalitarian states, political power is often held by autocrats, such as dictators and absolute monarchs, who employ all-encompassing campaigns in which propaganda is broadcast by state-controlled mass media in order to control the citizenry.[2] A country can be non-democratic without being totalitarian.

mejutoco 5y ago
How?
- r_hoods_ghost 5y ago
  By not being totalitarian. Totalitarianism is the extreme end of the spectrum where the party or individual attempts to control the totality of social, economic and political life. You can have non-democratic forms of government which allow significant social, economic and even political freedom, as long as it's expressed within certain bounds. Modern day China being a good example. Mao's China however was avowedly totalitarian and probably the second most extreme expression of totalitarianism there's ever been, after Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Is Putin's Russia totalitarian? Not yet, but it's certainly heading that way.
  - mejutoco 5y ago
    It seems like a valid distinction, but I do not agree with it. If what you are doing does not bother the government you may be able to say "see, it is not that bad, they are not telling me what to do in the totality of social, economic and political life"; if, on the other side, you do something they disagree with, the distinction between totalitarism and non-democracy disappears. In other words, to me the difference between being able to control and attempt to control are not that different. If it is possible, eventually somebody will attempt it. This is where checks and controls, division of power, etc. are useful.
- mdoms 5y ago
  Countries like Thailand are run by military juntas but are by no means totalitarian.

by im3w1l 5y ago

mejutoco 5y ago

How?

r_hoods_ghost 5y ago
By not being totalitarian. Totalitarianism is the extreme end of the spectrum where the party or individual attempts to control the totality of social, economic and political life. You can have non-democratic forms of government which allow significant social, economic and even political freedom, as long as it's expressed within certain bounds. Modern day China being a good example. Mao's China however was avowedly totalitarian and probably the second most extreme expression of totalitarianism there's ever been, after Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Is Putin's Russia totalitarian? Not yet, but it's certainly heading that way.
- mejutoco 5y ago
  It seems like a valid distinction, but I do not agree with it. If what you are doing does not bother the government you may be able to say "see, it is not that bad, they are not telling me what to do in the totality of social, economic and political life"; if, on the other side, you do something they disagree with, the distinction between totalitarism and non-democracy disappears. In other words, to me the difference between being able to control and attempt to control are not that different. If it is possible, eventually somebody will attempt it. This is where checks and controls, division of power, etc. are useful.
mdoms 5y ago
Countries like Thailand are run by military juntas but are by no means totalitarian.