Question on totalitarianism - from a philosophical standpoint what would be the endpoint?

Question

Having ready many books (both fiction and non-fiction) on totalitarianism and distopias in general I'd like to know, where does it all end?

Let me explain.

Totalitarianism is generally a system of absolute power. Every author I have read in this field generally appears to support the thesis that totalitarianism is used by those who exercise it for personal emotional gain, that is, they enjoy the absolute power and dominance over others, and will continue to work towards achieving absolute power.

Winston Smith is told this at the end of 1984. In "WE" (Zamyatin) D503, after having undergone surgery, watches his former 'girlfriend' die slowly. A factual example would be the Nazi party, North Korea is another.

The question is, if this is a psychological illness/trait (is it?), what would happen if the person with this power were to reach a point where all his subjects (every one of them) were totally under control, where there was absolutely no possibility of deviant behaviour (in all of the fiction books I have read the possibility of deviant behaviour exists. In 1984 the epilogue actually makes reference to the fact that Big Brother's state was actually overcome in some way, because it refers to it in the past tense).

What would be left for the totalitarian in control to do in terms of satisfying urges of power? If the subjects had absolutely no way of dissenting (just imagine if the whole world were under control), how would this person go on? Surely merely torturing or abusing subjects in other ways would be meaningless, as there would be nothing left to suppress?

Answer 1

Totalitarianism doesn't require a single psychopathic leader.
It's simply regulation of the social realm by the political.


1984 is a repressive state.
But there's no contradiction in there being such a non-repressive state where the population is nonetheless controlled, where the citizens accept their roles designated by the state.

world-domination is a mythical case.
Even if possible (surely the definition of 'state' would dissolve) there are always ways of gaining more power, by controlling every facet of daily experience. You don't just win the world and then sit back and relax-- the system is always on the verge of collapse. New people are born and need education, elder officials die.

It just so happens that political descent into every fact of daily life is inefficient -- you lose power doing it. So totalitarian "democraies" that taut "freedom" is the paradigm today -- totalitarianisms that guard us from the reality of their control of your daily life. Whether it's the politico-economic invasion of the family, school, work, sex life, it's simply a qualitative difference, an evolved and clandestine form.

Too bad, no one cares. We hate totalitarian states, so we've become one to guard against them and call ourselves differently for it. Wasn't there a 1984 word for this -- Newspeak?

A liberal democratic totalitarianism that benefits the people is the deviously true outcome of the 20th century wars. Hegel would be proud. If the terms for rebellion are quashed by the language, pre-empted before a population can even mobilize there's literally no way to challenge the discourse. And systematically, peripheral discources are eschewed from the language, not coercively, but by the subtle art of process itself-- each challenging alternative is made utterly irrelevant. Instead of extermination, we have ostracization. That is the penalty of opposition -- you stand outside the city walls without our amenities. The periphery itself is its own punishment.

Answer 2

A true, complete totalitarian regime, does not have one leader. A leader is fallible and limited. Not that China was necessarily totalitarian, but the Mao worship limited Maoism and after he died it all sort of fell apart. Arendt's definition of totalitarianism describes totalitarianism as a constant process. If there is no leader, there can be a constant struggle for power between members of the ruling government. Even if there are only 5 people in the upper rank of the party, they can spend time being suspicious of each other.

Answer 3

Totalitarianism is not a system of absolute power. It is the INTENTION to command a system of absolute power. There is a distinct difference between the two. Western liberal culture has a tendency to view Totalitarianism as monolithic and bleak. Such is never the case. Even if political dissention is entirely supressed, there are always other ways in which dissatisfaction is registered (worker ineffifiency, street crime, black markets, et cetera). And however minute such dissention is, a totalitarian state will attempt to surpress it.

So let's say you are the leader of a state that is sucessful with its intentions. There is no dissention! Let's take it further by saying there are no other nations in the world (if there were, that would be a constant potential source of dissention).

Naturally you would need an infrastructure to control your nation and this infrastructure would have to be given a degree of power to carry out its instructions. Immediately a power point is created and therefore a potential for dissention. This power point will always have to be supressed.

Let's say you invented robots that can do this work for you, so no power needs to be given to any other human in the world except yourself. At that point, all you would have to do is maintain your power. This is an act of supression. Once the breaks are let up even a bit, it is human nature to try and squeeze away. Out of ten billion people, if only 1% of them might be inclined to do such, we are looking at 100 million people who have to be delt with. So we still have supression.

So let's take it a step further. You altered the human gene to do nothing but slavishly obey you. No chance for dissention. At that point your nirvana will have been reached. Nothing left to supress. It would most likely be akin to winning a game of Civilization (by Sid Mieir, version 4 rocks!), eliminating all other nations, and then playing the game, unendingly, until you die. Not alot of fun. Of course technology would be static and progress, for inventions require independent thought which are always sources of dissention (Stalin killed off his most innovative generals and scientists, and look what happened to Russia in 1941!)

So in short, it is not a possible situation, for there is always something to surpess, but if it were, there would be nothing to surpress.

Answer 4

you are conflating achievement with accomplishment...basically saying that the totalitarian is driven by the achievement of more ways to control their subjects.

not bad, but it is also very possible that a totalitarian would get their kicks by just watching the world work under their control, a sort of voyeuristic totalitarianism, not unlike the relish many model railroad fans have for their "sets"...

interesting question.

Answer 5

Logical Positivism is the philosophy of the three factors you defined. when you're fairly feeling "religious", then you truthfully can't be an particularly position self assurance in atheism. From a Christian attitude, you're hyped up with delight and vanity and also you experience fairly reliable about it...clone of devil

Answer 6

It would in mass suicide.