Talk:Totalitarianism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

State & totalitarian movement

I've included personality cult & single-party system as they seemed to be considered as characteristics of totalitarian regimes by most, if not all, scholars on the subject. But as the introduction states that "totalitarianism is a regime in which the state controls everything," I wonder on the exclusion of thesis such as Ian Kershaw (in "Hitler, a Profile of Power") or Michel Foucault (see bibliography) who consider totalitarianism (in the case of Kershaw, Nazism, but Foucault includes Stalinism & Fascism) as decompositions of the state, to which the party substitute itself. Foucault spoke of a "party governmentality", while Kershaw insisted on the substitution of a "charismatic domination" (inspired by Weber) to the "bureaucratic domination", which passed through the means of the prevailence of the party (directly linked to the Führer through the Führerprinzip) over the state. Input? Tazmaniacs 15:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Leszek Kołakowski

"Kołakowski's experience of Nazi and Communist rule in Poland alerted him to the question of totalitarianism" claimed an older version of the article.Xx236 09:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Partisan editing

I see repeated attempts to hide information about totalitarian regimes under a smokescreen of "scholarly talk" about the meaning of term. There are passages on how it was coined, who applied the term to what, and so on.

I get confused about 1/3 into the article. Usually when we describe a phenomenon we say what it is and then give examples of it. This article has long seemed to be an protest against any use of the term at all. I wonder if there is a deconstructionist trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox here.

Anyway, I think the thing to do is to condense the material on "the term itself" or at any rate to start adding many examples of totalitarian regimes.

Once we have enough of those example, if anyone wants to include scholarly objections to the use of the term "totalitarian" to describe those regimes, they can. But don't forget to include defense of its use as well.

Essentially, there is a category of regime (dubbed "totalitarian" by some scholars and historians and political scientists) which tries to control everything; see totalism if it's not a redirect to this article. They say that Fascism and Communism have this "total control" aspect in common. One even called the two kinds of goverment "totalitarian twins".

This view, that Fascism and Communism are twin instances of one thing, is more popular in the Christianized West, perhaps. It would not be NPOV to exalt this view over any dissenting views, any more than it would be neutral to exalt the viewpoint that "totalitarianism" is a poorly defined or useless term.

Also, it's interesting to point out that adherents of Communism and Nazism opposed each other and were on opposite sides in World War II. Whether the "left" side (Communism) and the "far right" (Hitler, Mussolini) are diametrically opposed or simply mirrors with a lot in common, should be a major theme of this article.

Archivists, please do not conceal this suggestion or discussions about it, as that might falsely give the impression that this article is a "done deal" or stable. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There is legitimate scholarly debate about whether fascism and national socialism are right-wing phenomena. In point of fact, the two were in direct competition with Communism for adherents. Totalitarianism could therefore be considered a left-wing ideology rather than right-wing. They may be on the right edge of the left because of their militarism and nationalism, but they are still leftists. "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg makes some very interesting points that might add balance to the article. --unregistered guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.88.134 (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Except the private sector in Germany was alive and well, it was never nationalized the way it was in communist countries. On economics, all you can say about the Nazis is they were centrist. On everything else, they were far right - nationalism, militarism, and the support they received was overwhelmingly from the *conservative* institutions of Germany (the military, the business sector, the middle-class). Jonah Goldberg's book was just political name-calling. A liberal could write a book called "conservative communism," it wouldn't be any less absurd. 217.52.14.101 (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

They were never supported by conservatives. Nazis got their votes from working class voters who did not want to vote communists (who were rising), but neither wanted to vote conservative-liberals (accused of Great Depression).

Nazis and Communists were not ideological enemies. They were allies with the Nazi-Soviet Pact which was broken when they became enemies over power and territory. In my understanding Authoritarian would be far right with a monarchy rule while Totalitarian would be far left with a socialist/state dictatorial rule. Basically, dictators to the left and monarchs to the right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Examples

In Italian fascist state, even though it nationalized the industry and regulated markets, people were still somewhat free to move out, buy many things, and marry whoever they wanted. Not the clearest case of "totalitarianism".

In dozens of socialist countries, on the other hand, one could not even visit an another town without a permit from communist officials. Getting passports for foreign travel required special position and hundreds of thousands soldiers served solely to prevent the escape of population. Local bureaucrats selected people's jobs, food servings, even spouses. In some states as Cambodia, children were systematically separated from their parents for anti-capitalist indoctrination.

Ridiculous how some editors try to censor experiences of some half the world population between 1918 and 1991.Valois bourbon (talk) 11:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Fascist countries were not consumer economies, but remained with subsistence agricultural economies and large landowners. Most people were too poor to "buy many things" in Spain, Portugal, and Italy, and many starved. You definitely needed permission to travel under Fascism, even to a neighboring town in Italy. You had to present your papers to the local police department on arrival, and this situation persisted into the nineteen fifties. As for freedom to marry. I have not heard that in Soviet Russia people's spouses were selected for them, though this may have been the case in Cambodia. 24.105.152.153 (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)feb 2009

Ba'athism

Unless someone calls Ba'athism, as practiced until 2003 under Saddam Hussein and in Syria to this day "fascist", why should it not be included as a totalitarian ideology as a third type?

Saddam Hussein and Hafez Assad ruled in much the same manner as the two other (here recognized) totalitarian general forms, Communist and fascist. Saddam Hussein seems to have adopted most of his techniques from Stalin, being careful to avoid Stalin's atheism in deference to Islamic sensibilities.

Is totalitarianism "extreme dictatorship" or does it apply only those that fit certain cultural modes? It's clear that Saddam Hussein's regime was far more lethal than were those of Kurt Schuschnigg in Austria or Wojciech Jaruzelski in Poland. The former is usually considered "fascist"; the latter "communist". The regimes of Saddam Hussein and Hafez Assad have common characteristics with nazism and Marxism-Leninism:

• 1. Clear-cut ideology and no pluralism

• 2. No security of life and property

• 3. Personality cult in practice

• 4. Pretension to being "true democracy" as opposed to "false" democracy (as in "plutocratic" or "bourgeois" societies)

• 5. Extensive government control of the economy

• 6. Fraudulent elections and plebiscites, if any

• 7. Brutal repression of any real or imagined opposition

• 8. Simultaneous claim to modernity and an idealized but distant past

• 9. Attempt to re-shape the national culture

• 10. Militarism and expansionism

This describes Pol Pot's Cambodia, Hitler's Germany, North Korea, Stalin's Soviet Union, Vichy France, Ustaše Croatia, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba, Hungary under the Arrow Cross movement, Mussolini's Italy, and Japan during World War II very well. Perhaps Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, and Iran under Reza Pahlavi II. It badly describes traditional monarchies (Saudi Arabia) and most military dictatorships (including Augusto Pinochet's Chile or Greece under George Papadoupoulos) because those allow extensive economic freedom and endorse tradition as a contrast to modernity. It also badly describes the lunatic despotism of Idi Amin. Apartheid in South Africa or Rhodesia? Democracy for a privileged ethnic group, if oppression and repression for everyone else. Zionism? Whatever offense Israel may be to its neighbors, Israeli citizens are relatively safe from their government, have free elections and much economic freedom, face no personality cult, and usually try to compare their government to liberal democracies. It's best that we not allow the word "totalitarianism" to be spread to the bogeyman of the day.

If totalitarianism is as much a political culture as it is the absence of freedom, then what separates Ba'athism from fascism and Communism? Because it isn't overtly anti-religious and doesn't put up pictures of Marx and Lenin everywhere, it's certainly not Communist. Because it isn't overtly racist, it's not Nazi or even fascist. It is (or was) clearly expansionist, as demonstrated in the Syrian incursion into Lebanon and Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.--Paul from Michigan (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Ba'ath Party under Saddam was quite overtly racist, especially towards Kurds, Persians and Jews. There was also oppression of religious minorities that were not in line with the regime (the Shi'a). And parallels can certainly be drawn between Hitler's holocaust and chemical attacks on the Kurds.

They had areas of agreement with Marxism also - centralized command economy, for one, and secular government, for another. (Unlike in the communist world religion per se was never suppressed, but any religious groups that he felt were escaping his control were cracked down on instantly. This made religions unable to function as independent moral guides, making their existence essentially pointless).

As for whether or not it's totalitarianism, that simply depends on which application of Ba'athism you're talking about. Saddam's Iraq was certainly totalitarian, but Assad's Syria could probably be considered simply authoritarian. (In the same way, Hitler and Mussolini are generally considered totalitarian; Franco and Salazar, despite their almost identical ideology, are not). R2Parmly (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I just want to note that this section is FAR better than the article itself. Thank you for clearly defining your terms, using more than two obvious examples, and contrasting with similar non-examples. The main article does none of these things. 173.228.85.18 (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, neither the Syrian nor the Iraqi Ba'ath parties could be considered totalitarian. They lacked the mass popular appeal and movements of other totalitarian movements, and their leaders seem not to have taken the original Ba'ath ideology all that seriously. Their personality cults were practically non-existent despite token efforts to establish them. The "total" in totalitarianism is less about total control and more about a total and radical vision. I don't see Saddam or Assad has having really attempted introduce radical change to their societies. They were extreme authoritarians who were, I think, ultimately insincere in their commitment to the ideologies their parties espoused. (Trau)

Communism and Fascism section (merge)

I have added a substantial amount of text merged under this header from the Totalitarian twins article regarding the combination of communism and fascism. Bry9000 (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that was right. "Totalitarian rule" is a scientific term. "Totalitarian twins" is a propaganda slogan. Let's keep such things separately, although they are related.Biophys (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No one responded here for a long time. So, I split them back.Biophys (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

See Also: Scientology?

Can someone tell me why Scientology is a "see also" in the Totalitarianism article? Or more precisely why I shouldn't remove that link? ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 18:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I added Apartheid because it has a clear-cut ideology and repressive means as well as a tendency for expansion. Its victims can look upon it as a crushing order. It might be freedom for some but tyranny for others, just like any totalitarian ideology. Its demise in South Africa was often seen in much the same light as the demise of Communism in the former Soviet bloc.

I have removed the link on the grounds that there is not now and there likely will never be any "Scientologist" government. I can't think of even a Scientology-directed or dominated political party anywhere. Scientology offends the sensibilities of many for its obscurantism, its extreme demands for personal compliance, its hard methods of attacking detractors... but such can be said of any cult. If Scientology is totalitarian, then so is every religious, philosophical, and political cult; such an inclusion reduces the meaning of the category.

Whether I like or dislike Scientology has nothing to do with it. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "Apartheid" should be considered totalitarianism either. It involves oppression of one minority by another, but not of the people as a whole by the government. Should the southern United States pre- Civil War be considered totalitarian? No, because most of the population (whites) were citizens with full voting rights. Totalitarianism implies state control of everything. That's not the case when so much of the population is free to do as it pleases, and when the slaves are controlled not by the government but by private citizens.

Apartheid, sick and wrong? Certainly. A form of oppression? Undeniably. But totalitarian, it just doesn't fit the definition. R2Parmly (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have to concur with the above comments. Those who are suggesting placing Rhodesia and apartheid-era South Africa under the rubric totalitarianism are mistaking using the term for any form of extremely oppressive government. I would agree that yes, there were grave human-rights abuses in South Africa and Rhodesia, and yes, that for the black population (who were the majority of the population), white supremacist rule was indeed oppressive. However, for those fortunate enough to be white during those regimes, the rule of law generally did apply. Totalitarianism is usually understood as referring to regimes who the state holds total power over its subjects with no restraint or limits, and since there were usually limits on the state’s power when it came to white citizens, that disqualifies South Africa and Rhodesia. Both of those regimes were nasty, unpleasant and racist, but I don’t think they can be considered totalitarian. --A.S. Brown (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

POV problems

I found some minor POV problems that I corrected. I also tried to improve the lead, and removed some redundancy. I think its better now but I'm open for discussion, of course. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Biosphy, I'm not sure if you intentionally undid my NPOV improvements, since you didn't state anything in the edit summary, and seems you were reverting an IP user. I've restored my changes, of course, but if it was intentional, please explain, and lets discuss our desired changes. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You have made too many questionable changes during one edit. So, it is difficult to discuss them all at once. It would be more productive if you could make one change at a time, and then discuss. Let's start from a few problems.

1. You said: "Totalitarianism is a concept used to describe modern political systems". No, it is mostly used to describe historical political regimes.
2. You wrote: "According to Richard Pipes, he [Hitler] conceded", and so on. No, this text is not "according to Pipes". It is according to Hitler.
3. You wrote: "Critics say that the concept is flawed, and that the term lacks explanatory power. ", and so on. This is fine to tell in a "Criticism" section, with all arguments and counter-arguments provided. Telling this in Introduction in such way is POV.
4. "Proponents of the theory have each described totalitarianism in a slightly different way. Common to all definitions is ...". The previous version of this paragraph was better and more concise.

Please make one change at a time and discuss. This article should be improved by adding more scholarly information on the subject, not by "NPOVing" it the way you are doing.Biophys (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, let me address these points.

1. This is not a big issue for me, and I may be wrong about it. The sources I've read have always attributed it to modern states. Indeed, the article states, "according to most scholars the first totalitarian regimes were formed in the 20th century." Do you have an application to non-modern State? My "understanding was not just that this was a modern concept, but that that because states before the 20th century lacked the technological means for controlling large numbers of people in the way specified by the concept, its rare at best. That is with television, radio, and other mass media, it makes it relatively easy for "totalitarian regimes" to make their presence felt through campaigns of propaganda or the creation of the personality cult that sticks, hence the concept of totalitarian democracy (which should have a section in this article, btw). I have seen some references to the Qin Dynasty as a possible rare example of a pre-modern totalitarian state, and also periods of the Imperial Catholic reins of power being described this way, so you might be right, but I'd have to double check.

I agree with that. Sorry, I did not understand what you mean.Biophys (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I wrote: "According to Richard Pipes, he [Hitler] conceded", and so on. And you say, No, this text is not "according to Pipes". It is according to Hitler." Ah but look at the source. It's the source that is being used here, so it is according to the source. The source is NOT Mein Kampf, right? Therefore we are not quoting Hitler, and hence the statement we reference is not according to Hitler but according to Pipes, who asserts this statement of fact. Also, the wording was POV as it states it as an established fact, and avoids any attribution. This violate NPOV, and is misleading.

I modified this paragraph to make a more clear attribution to Pipes.Biophys (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I disagree that stating the concept is disputed is POV for the intro. In fact its POV to state the concept as if it were a valid, accepted concept when it was not. Sure, in the body of the article, we can get into the issues, but the intro should reflect the major points in the body. The fact that this is a disputed concept that has been largely discredited since the collapse of the Soviet Union (not supposed to happen under the theory), is a major issue. Perhaps we can compromise on cutting it down for the intro?

O'K, let's expand and source main "Criticism" section first. Then we can briefly summarize the criticisms in Introduction.Biophys (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

1. You say the previous version was better, but I'm not sure how or why you say it was better. More elaboration on this point is needed in order for me to address it.

It was shorter but tells exactly the same.Biophys (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Some other glaring POV issues that you restored, for example is in restoring the term "even" when referencing class: "In the social sciences, the approach of Friedrich and Brzezinski came under criticism from scholars who argued that the Soviet system, both as a political and as a social entity, was in fact better understood in terms of interest groups, competing elites, or even 'in class terms..." By inserting "even" class POV is inserted as it implies that class analysis is somehow more far-fetched, minimizing a rather major school of critical theory. There were other changes Ive made that I felt were quite needed improvements, too, but I'll leave it here for now. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This article simply does not explain what the totalitarian rule is. That is major problem. I will try to fix this as time allows.Biophys (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with some of my points, above, and glad that you saw it was just misunderstanding. Some of your additions are good but others I see as still problematic. I don't see that you really correct the POV/attribution problems I mentioned above, either. For example the text still says, "Hitler admitted that he had "learned a great deal from Marxism". He conceded that..." Same problem. Also, the "even class" phrase is still not corrected. Adding in "even" is POV, as I explained above.

I also think some of your changes to the criticism section made things worse. For example you changes this: "As the Soviet system disintegrated in the late 1980s and early 1990s, opponents of the concept claimed that the transformation of the Soviet Union under Mikhail Gorbachev, and its subsequent sudden collapse, demonstrated that the totalitarian model had little explanatory value..." Into this:

"As the Soviet system disintegrated in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it became clear that totalitarian systems are intrinsically unstable. That was not obvious earlier for some researchers."

Besides the POV problems with the wording, you completely changed that critics point - removing it - and substituted instead POV explanation in defense of the theory (stating a change of the theory?) instead of the point the critics are making, which is supposed to be the subject of the section. If that is counter point that is made it needs to be sourced, and the original point needs to be re-instated (also with some good sources). The original point that critics made is that the theory of totalitarianism stipulated that such states would not fall on their own but required a violent toppling, and hence the theory was proved wrong in that respect. Indeed, there are many points of critics, which call for an expansion of this section, not a trimming, as you have done. Much of it does center around it lacking any pratical use by historians, but is rather an idealized type, "ideal type" which does not reflect actual reality of states, stemming from the flawed concept of the "organic state."

Lastly, I'm wondering if we should even have a section on Communism and Fascism here. There are other articles which talk about this, and this article should focus more on the issues directly related to the theory of Totalitarianism. But if it is here it should be more tied into a discussion of the totalitarianism. It should be made clear that the theory was posited by anti-communist authors advancing a revisionist view against the dominant view that fascism grew out of as a reaction against socialist revolutionary movements, by saying that they were essential the same in both theory and practice; the Austrian School economist Friedrich Hayek, comes to mind as an exmple, where he argues they both have common philosophical roots both springing from the opposition to the liberalism of the 19th century. The traditional view is that Marxism/Communism comes out of liberalism (see C.Wright Mills for example of this view).

But if we are to present this area of discussion, the critical views should be mentioned, as well. Specifically they point out that the this view makes incomprehensible the radical opposition between the ideologies which informs them, esp. considering that ideology is indeed constitutive of each of the regimes whose affinity it is claimed are essentially the same. Critics point out aht Communism claims to hold universal values; it only denounces democracy because it appears to be formal, and hollow, and in order to establish a real democracy, that is to say, one which gives full meaning to the concept of equality and to the participation of the people in public matters. Its main aim is to assure the common good within the society in which it is established; and its final aim is to safeguard the common good of humanity. Violence presents itself as counter-violence imposed by the domination of the bourgeoisie. Fascism, on the other hand, glorifies nationalistic passions and claims to realize the particular destiny of a particular people in a national or ethnic sense. In its extreme version, that of Nazism, it attributes absolute superiority to the people of Germany and associates this image with that of the pure race, summoned either to subjugate inferior races or to eliminate them; anti-Semitism lies at the heart of the ideology. Violence is then considered to be an expression of life to be glorified, even. There are of course other aspects but criticism section does need to be expanded if we are to keep the section on Communism and Fascism, which I think may not fit best in this article.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I can not reply to everything right now, but the entire "Criticism" section is simply unsourced. If you can find a scholarly book with Criticism of the concept, you are very welcome to include anything from there, but with clear attribution please. Everything in this section look pretty much as OR.Biophys (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

With regard to your other comments... I agree that Totalitarian twins should be split back (see my comment about merging above). I also agree with everything you said about fascism. Sure, even the strongest proponents of "totaliarianism" do not claim that communism=fascism. As about "Soviet democracy", yes, they claim a lot, but deliver something completely opposite, and disinformation is a policy of the state. Remember, I lived there.Biophys (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Disinformation is the policy of every state, but I agree with you about practice of "soviet democracy," being the opposite of what they claimed (State capitalism). Certainly true. I was rather referring to the conceptions of Marxism/Communism re democracy. Yes, I'll have to dig up some good sources for the criticism section. Thanks for your quick response.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Going back a couple of posts;

"As the Soviet system disintegrated in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it became clear that totalitarian systems are intrinsically unstable. That was not obvious earlier for some researchers".

Is this really true? Okay, the Eastern Bloc fell apart, Cuba and North Korea will follow soon enough. But what about China? That is still very much a totalitarian regime, and it shows no signs of following in its comrades' path. Quite the contrary, the market reforms that they put in place have made it more stable and more powerful, and all evidence is that this trend will continue for the forseeable future.

Similarly, there is no evidence that Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were "inherently unstable". They were destroyed by foreign conquest, not because of any internal problems, and we have no idea what would have happened if the systems had been allowed to continue; for all we know, they might be alive and well today.

I'm not suggesting for a second that totalitarianism is a good thing, but there's nothing to prove that it's inherently unstable, as the vitality of Nazi Germany and the present successes of the PRC demonstrate. *Communism* is intrinsically unstable, yes - but not all totalitarianisms are communist. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Totalitarianism is strictly speaking refers to a typology of rule, not an ideology. Unfortunately, a lot of people for various reasons get mixed up, and treat what is a typology of rule as an ideology (which does much to muddle the issues). Since totalitarianism is a typology, it can be either right or left depending on the circumstances, so the above comments about the alleged positive nature of Communism vs. the negative nature of fascism as way of disqualifying the concept are with all due respect, mistaken.--A.S. Brown (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Would islamist systems count?

Would islamist systems, particularly Khomeini's Iran and Qaddafi's Libya, be considered totalitarian? Personality cults, ideological inculcation and control of every aspect of society were just as much facts of life under those two as under Hitler and Stalin. People are hesitant to call them totalitarian because the regimes draw their beliefs (or claim to) from religion rather than political ideology, but whatever name it goes by, it's the same bottom line; the State decides what orthodoxy is, and Thou Shalt Not violate it. (Imams have been arrested in Iran for preaching views contradicting those of the regime, and both liberal and fundamentalist Muslims have been persecuted by Qaddafi's Libya). 213.181.226.21 (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Iran may not be exactly a fascist state; It looks like a democracy, actually, in some aspects!!!!! I am not sure what you mean as "imams have been arrested in Iran": just the opposite is true. Check out "Persian Mirrors: The Elusive Face" of Iran by Elaine Sciolino.

I think it could be said that Islam itself is totalitarian, if you go strictly by the Koran. It stipulates a specific political system, a specific social order, gender roles, a specific monetary/financial system, the relation between Mosque and State, which the Bible nor the Torah do. Plus, Communism developed in a manner similar to Islam. You had Marx and Engels, who wrote the Manifesto, just as Allah wrote the Koran, or whose words were represented by it. You have the prophet of Islam, who brought it to the masses by engendering revolution by delivering the word of Allah into his movement, Mohammed. You have Lenin who brought the word of Marx and Engels, tho of his own style, to the masses and engendered revolution by interpreting Marxism to the Russians. They both made their acts into political systems. Then you have Stalinism, which was the mainstream Communism, and Trotskyism, a rebel movement who broke off from Stalinism as the "true Communism." You have Sunnism, the mainstream, and the have the Shiites, who broke off from the Sunnis, claiming to be the true Islam. Stalin:Trotsky=Abu Bakr:AliTallicfan20 (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ba'athism and the former system of rule in Libya under Moammar Qaddafi show many totalitarian characteristics, but they aren't particularly Islamic. That some countries with Islamic majorities are or have been democracies at times (Albania, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Mali, Pakistan, and Turkey) and that Muslim minorities seem to thrive in liberal non-Muslim countries (Bulgaria, Canada, France, Germany, India, the United Kingdom, the United States, and even Israel) demonstrate that Islam is compatible with Jeffersonian politics. It may be that liberalism allows the functioning of a conscience based upon Islamic principles as dictatorial regimes, even if nominally Islamic, make impossible.Pbrower2a (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Right-wing Slanted P.O.V.

This article needs a real good clean-up:

Under the current definition, every state and no state could be considered totalitarian. That is, no state would ever strive to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible. Feasibility of regulation is a very poor criterion for selection by the state. All systems are optimized with some goal in mind like economic advantage or the public good. Even such criteria as going for "low-hanging fruit" leaves out a more fundamental filter such as health and human welfare or military necessity.

It is valid to say that a totalitarian state recognizes no limits to its authority. That is, a gang of thugs just does what it wants to do without any moral or ethical restraint. However, all governments are authoritarian to some degree. Perhaps it is more reasonable to suggest that totalitarianism represents the far end of the authoritarian spectrum - while liberalism represents the other.

It is also unreasonable to state that only totalitarian governments seek to control public opinion. See for example Propaganda for Japanese-American Internment. Every government does this to some extent.

It seems to me, however, that more often than not and including in this article, the term totalitarianism is used to scare people into shunning a particular ideology, usually having to do with the distribution of wealth or political power sharing. As soon as someone suggests an idea that is in opposition to our so called "capitalist democracy," it gets labeled totalitarian. That is, the western, authoritarian, patrician oligarchy attacks those whose ideas differ. Moreover, they have at times used whatever means they deemed necessary in the name of democracy. For an example, see McCarthyism or the Japanese-American internment. This article could clearly benefit by a section exposing the use of the fear of totalitarianism as a tactic to actually induce totalitarian control. For example, it would be reasonable to label stalinism totalitarianism, but what about modern, swedish socialism? Donald Kagan of Yale University in his Introduction to Ancient Greek History lecture series, on Yale Open Courses, labels any "Utopian Socialism" as totalitarianism. This kind of byzantine word-smithing is so deeply ingrained in patrician controlled academia that it is rarely questioned.

206.109.195.126 (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd argue that the other far end of the authoritarian spectrum is anarchy.

But then it could also be argued that anarchy leads to "totalitarianism"... I think the term itself is useless and unscientific.

Centril (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, this article absolutely stinks of American-style far-right ideology. Quoting a fringe thinker like Hayek at length with no criticism, stating that Nazism and fascism are kinds of socialism, and listing 'monopoly on weapons' as a primary trait of totalitarianism are all talking points straight out of Fox News or Breitbart. 'Monopoly on weapons' is a trait of almost every major nation on earth with the exception of America, and last I checked America is topping many lists for indices of civil liberties, government transparency, or democratic integrity. It's easier for an American to buy a gun than it is to vote. Trilobright (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

That's true. AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

That's nice... but this is a Wikipedia talk page, not a not a soapbox. All users are welcome to develop articles according to policies and guidelines. Rather than complaining and agreeing with complaints, you could always actively engage in researching and editing the article according to reliable sources. Bear in mind that challenges to content are not to be not to be based on personal opinion, nor on original research. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not a political debating forum, no matter how much we'd all like that. GAB^Hello! 00:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Pipes

Much of the sourcing Pipes uses for the views of Hitler on the parallels between Fascism and Communism cannot be reliably traced back to anything stated by Hitler at any stage. Pipes is generally a lot less neutral in his judgement than can be expected from someone in his position, and most of the direct quotes here are actually Pipes citing Rauschning, who has been largely discredited as a fantasist.

This section of the article is essentially Wikipedia disseminating anti-marxist propaganda, and is, in any case, simply not safe to use as a reliable source for the views of Hitler. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That is why we should use good secondary sources like this book by Pipes (see WP:Verifiability). We have no obligation to dig out hundreds of primary sources cited in a secondary source. This is work for professional historians like Pipes. Any way, this was cited from the book by Pipes, and the attribution has been provided. Nothing else is needed.Biophys (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

But the authenticity of so-called primary source - i.e. Rauschning - has been repeatedly called into question. Pipes quoting a source verbatim does not make that source de facto reliable. While I have my doubts about Pipes, these do not even come into the question here. It is sophistry to argue that Pipes quoting this makes it worthy of inclusion as a 'Hitler quote'. The article could mention that Pipes quotes Rauschning's account of his alleged meetings with Hitler, but the article cannot baldly state that 'Hitler said X', as it does now. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources telling that this particular citation is wrong, that might be relevant. I will check this later.Biophys (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Haenel, though often feted by revisionists, nevertheless makes some compelling points. Ian Kershaw is a more credible name, and his biographies of Hitler (vols 1 and 2) view Rauschning as almost so discredited as to be unworthy of notice. My attention has been drawn to HW Koch's Aspects of the Third Reich, (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1985) pg 55' by the WP article on Rauschning. You will have to appreciate that I do not currently have the books mentioned in front of me at the moment, so more detailed citations will have to wait. I do not however believe many serious historians of the period have regarded Rauschning as reliable for some 10-15 years. I will freely confess to frequently having problems with Pipes's syntheses, but as I have said, this is not even relevant here. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 23:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, Laqueur, 'Fin de siecle and other essays on America & Europe', p101, specifically criticises Pipes's reliance on Rauschning and dismisses Rauschning's books as 'not a primary source'. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this comes from "Hitler speaks" by Hermann Rauschning. If "Hitler speaks" was disputed, this should be described in article Hermann Rauschning. If the book was a subject of a controversy, this should be also noted here.Biophys (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The disputed nature of Rauschning's work is certainly (albeit clumsily) described in the article on him. This article will need rewording to reflect the controversy, as Rauschning's claims of what Hitler apparently 'told him' are set out here as being direct Hitler quotes - "Hitler...asserted that" is far more definite than the sourcing is. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The disputed nature of Rauschning's work is not sourced even in main article Hermann Rauschning, and it is much less relevant here. Let's provide some sourcing first in main article.Biophys (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

The article says that "The governmental techniques of a totalitarian regime are necessarily authoritarian" but I cannot see how totalitarianism requires authoritarianism, although I can see that authoritarianism makes totalitarianism easier. I believe it is possible, albeit a bit difficult, to have a totalitarian republic or a totalitarian mob rule without any identifiable single source of power (eg a leader). Any references supporting the view that totalitarianism implies authoritarianism? NerdyNSK (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what cited source tells (citation provided).It tells that the government of every totatlitarian regime is necessarily authoriatarian.Biophys (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not have this book in order to make sure it says this thing, but the whole concept (that totalitarianism is impossible without authoritarianism) does not sound right to me. Citing just one reference is not all the truth. I found another reference, actually documented in Wikipedia in the article totalitarian democracy, which claims that it is possible to have totalitarianism with elections, which I think is very close to what I meant above. So, in order to keep the article NPOV, I added a link to the Wikipedia article on totalitarian democracy to show that various academics have different views on whether totalitarianism requires authoritarianism. NerdyNSK (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is possible "to have totalitarianism with elections" as you said! There were elections in the Soviet Union. However all candidates were actually preselected by the CPSU, and all preselected candidates have been elected. I also strongly agree that "citing just one reference is not all the truth" as you said. But then please cite at least one good reference that tells something different, and cite it as in-line citation, with pages and preferably with a quote. Since you are talking about totalitarian democracy, please do it first in totalitarian democracy that is totally unsourced at the moment. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that totalitarian democracy is completely irrelevant here. The concept of totalitarian democracy belongs to criticism of democracy. However totalitarian regimes are not democracies - according to absolutely all sources. Some sources criticize the concept of totalitarianism as not very useful, but all agree that "totalitarian" means something opposite to "democracy" - according to the concept.Biophys (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Communism in its pure anarcho form is totalitarianism since the individual is totally subjected to the collective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.100.86 (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Original research

Please cite any scholarly secondary sources that tell "the political system in US represents totalitarianism" (as in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union). I did not see anything like that in your version.Biophys (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because there are none, at least not from anything we'd normally consider a reliable source. Article certainly should not say that. - Jmabel | Talk 17:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, and similarly in my view, someone added "and present" to Mao-era China." I personally think that's ridiculous. No question that present-day China is a bit of a police state, but no more so than (say) Singapore or any other of a number of countries we wouldn't normally call totalitarian. Uncited, probably uncitable; certainly far too controversial to be used as an example in the lead. This should be changed. To equate present-day China with Nazi Germany, Maoist China, or the Soviet Union under Stalin is an insult to those who suffered under the latter regimes. Are there human rights abuses in present-day China? You bet. But pick up a random issue of Index on Censorhip and you can find a catalogue of human rights abuses in 40 other countries. This doesn't mean that most of the world is currently under totalitarian regimes. It trivializes the meaning of "totalitarianism" to say so. - Jmabel | Talk

I'd add that, in this respect, the inclusion of Cuba is pushing it pretty hard, too. Can someone provide a mainstream source calling present-day Cuba "totalitarian"? - Jmabel | Talk 17:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

For that matter, can someone name even one major non-English-language Wikipedia where there is consensus to give these as examples? I think these inclusions represent a blinkered view of the world. - Jmabel | Talk 17:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree about US - this is blatant OR. I think "Mao-era China" is fine. About Fidel's Cuba - let's have some time to find a reference. If nothing found, it should be removed.Biophys (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, none of sources I know about tell anything about "Stalinism". They tell only about communist states as examples of totalitarianism. This is also OR.Biophys (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A source

Historian Yuri Afanasiev argued that contemporary Russia is still a totalitarian country and traces the connection between the total economic dependence of people on the State and "total corruption" Interview with Yuri Afanasiev (Russian) at Echo of Moscow. See also [1] and [2]. Biophys (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Examples of totalitarian states

The article contained the phrase

"states such as the Soviet Union (Russia, East Germany, Romania, etc.)"

I removed Russia, East Germany, and Romania for the following reasons:

- the parentheses made it look like Russia, East Germany, and Romania are/were part of the Soviet Union, which is incorrect.

- all three terms describe geographical regions, not political entities that exist or existed at one point in time. It could be argued that the former GDR and Ceauşescu's Romania were totalitarian regimes, but currently East Germany and Romania are not. So, just listing "Russia, East Germany, Romania" is not precise enough.

Tadzio (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think any list of examples is bound to be controversial. Such a list should be included somewhere in the article, certainly, but not in the lead. Totalitarianism is primarily a concept in political science, similar to liberal democracy for example. Notice that there is no list of countries in the lead for the liberal democracy article. -- Amerul (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It is OK to keep specific countries as long as they have been described by at least several serious scholars as "totalitarian". Soviet Union and Nazi Germany fit this criterion. As about other countries - I am not so sure.Biophys (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Then German Democratic Republic, the proper name.Valois bourbon (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Would it not be fairer to balance the list out if one had to be included? For example- there are as many, if not more, capitalistic countries that have been totalitarian, yet that form is completely unrepresented. Why not add in Chile under Pinochet? Or the many Latin American banana republics? As it stands, by listing only Communist or Fascist it's implying that totalitarianism is a phenomenon specific to those forms. Which it plainly isn't. 78.150.246.215 (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If you think that the Pinochet regime in Chile was totalitarian then you have not understood the concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.96.77 (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. It was not totalitarian but merely a dictatorship.Biophys (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Difference between authoritarian and totalitarian states

The second paragraph does not belong under the section heading. Also, it would be helpful if it could be expanded to explain why social structures in Italy and German returned faster than in Russia. Is it because communism laster for a longer period, because Russia's pre-1917 social structures were inadequate in 1990, or because communism's destruction of social structure was more complete? The Four Deuces (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned up this section a little, but it seems somewhat questionable to me... The whole thing appears to be a quote, but the quotation marks before the cleanup were ambiguous, making it unclear how much of it is really a quote. Someone with the source (Pipes (1993)) should check. It also might make sense to rewrite the section, incorporating some quotations of Loewenstein (who seems to have had a pretty good idea of what he was talking about) but making most of the section original text. If I knew more about the topic, I would do it myself. Michael Sappir • (Talk) 01:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

'In Popular Culture' section too short?

There are plenty of examples out there, such as the film The Island, for one.

Image copyright problem with File:Pol Pot2.jpg

The image File:Pol Pot2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Telescreen.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Image in the lead being considered for deletion

The present image in the lead section is being considered for deletion. See the discussion the discussion here.—pivovarov (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC) X-romix (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if the image is kept, it is propaganda not worthy of an NPOV encyclopedia: It doesn't illustrate an actual event, I don't base itself on verifiable facts, it is used - as per the image description - to illustrate the formulation made in an opinion book by a partisan author. ANd yeah, Jimbo called it a "bad idea". Perhaps the image has value as an example of a photomontage, but it has no place in this article, in particular with such prominence. Perhpas individual Images of Stalin and Hitler can be used, but this montage is an insult to encyclopedic quality.--Cerejota (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The article "Totalitarianism" by an Australian political scientist Prof. Leslie Templeman Holmes in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences says:

Totalitarianism was a major concept of the twentieth century. Yet both its meaning and its application were contested. While most political scientists believed that the concept summarised well the key features of both Fascism (inc. Nazism) and Communism, historians such as Alan Bullock argued that the difference between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union (particularly under Stalin) were such that it was misleading to use a single term to describe both. While there unquestionably were important distinctions between Fascism and Communism, particularly in terms of the role played by ideology, the predominant view nowadays is that the term is a useful short-hand way of describing a range of systems that, on balance, had more commonalities than differences.

Thus, the encyclopedic view is that totalitarianism is a partisan concept on its own, the image is an objective and accurate illustration of this concept, it respects NPOV per WP:WEIGHT, and it is a free replacement for an actual book cover (not to mention lots of other verifiable examples of similar artwork). You can blame the whole notion of totalitarianism for being propaganda, but the image just summarizes what this notion really is about.—pivovarov (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand this point, and definitely illustrations such as the one with the DPRK guards, or perhaps of Stalin and/or Hitler in situations that serve to illustrate this concept are warranted. However, the photomontage goes beyond mere illustration, and into advocacy.

For example, if it were the actual cover of a book, or some illustration from a well-known illustrator or some such other type of work, I would have no objection: it would clearly be serving an illustrative purpose of the facts of this partisan position. But that is not what is happening here: this is a completely derivative work, ideologically motivated. The fact that we even have to explicitly say that it is a photomontage illustrates this point: otherwise it would be totally misleading. And even with this caveat, it is misleading. I am sure we can find better illustrations of this concept, one that is not so blatantly partisan, and doesn't mislead our readers. --Cerejota (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Book covers, etc., are copyrighted and thus, their use in the lead of the present article would be a violation of WP:NFC and subject to WP:SPEEDY deletion — because they can be replaced with a free image and it has actually been done. For many reasons I wish we could use an illustration associated with well-known author, but it is just not an option. Could you please provide specific suggestions how to illustrate a central idea of the concept that fascism and Stalin's communism had more commonalities than differences, without the use of copyrighted material? Otherwise we just have to admit that there are no reasonable alternatives and instead of removing the image we should probably work on its caption.—pivovarov (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Eugene Pivovarov. This image illustrates main idea of the article.Biophys (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  Political idea can't be illustrated, illustration of an idea is a propaganda (e.g. soviet posters, monuments, parades). Encyclopedia is another genre, it's not a tribune of propaganda. But existnig drawings and illustrations can be shown as examples, publications. Especially if book has a good sales (e.g. cover of book written by Suvorov-Rezun). X-romix (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What about ArbCom?

• Discussion is wery long in Russian and English -pedia. Jimbo mean is clear. X-romix (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

From the early discussion archive, I believe this should be touched on and re-addressed.

Talk:Totalitarianism Archive 1, the word "Totalitarian" did not originally imply coercion and in Archive 2 of this discussion page user:Lapaz claims "the inventor of the term. Must be included." and user:Jmabel agrees "Certainly we should explain that the term evolved away from Gentile's meaning." I too agree.

It is however a convoluted subject to touch on, but effort should be made to convey it concisely but informatively in this article, which it doesn't (the meaning Gentile attributed to the word, not just that he *used* the word)

As someone who has read most of Gentile's works that have been translated into English, I can say it is hard to explain without knowing the breadth and depth of his work, but originally 'totalitarianism', as per his works like "Genesis & Structure of Society" meant a form of "Corporatism", where private interests and public interests were reciprocal:

It was a form of syndicalism, where free, private-vested interests "became" the state, from the bottom up, not where the state coerced and enforced it's single, unilateral will on every single aspect of life (in theory only, I'm not saying that's what the state became in action, but neither did the Soviet Union become much of what it wanted in theory as a social philosophy) but quite the opposite where every organic aspect of life that cropped up independently would be cradled and codified as a branch of the state and taken into the state apparatus as a bureaucratic entity of every private creation.

Gentile saw public & private as dialectically the same and wanted a state that recognized this (very similar to Social Credit actually, but this is OR): this was his "totalitarian state", that every diverse social difference and way of doing things would be in the legal acceptance of the state (think of a bureaucratic statist Sorelian anarcho-syndicalism; this is the anarcho-syndicalist root of Fascism in Georges Sorel: anarcho-syndicalism made into a flowering and growing state system; officializing and all-encompassing of each divergent facet of life indiscriminately, and putting the stamp of state centralization on to them when and where they expressed themselves) rather than the other way around where one legal way was espoused and all others were squashed as in a police state: which Mussolini himself said the totalitarian state as an ideology "was not"). This was the original theory.

Of course, it also makes more sense if one knows that what Gentile called "the state" was more a condition of 'natural law' than of 'positive law', something that always exists in the background that could never be denied and would always ambiently express itself by basic human interaction & even negarchy where it was denied. This should be noted as it seems most today define the state as existing in terms of positive law, and that a natural law state is more anarchist law i.e. non-state. Gentile's definition of Fascism and the modern far left come full circle in my opinion. 4.255.52.121 (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have noticed a severe deterioration in the quality of this article over the past year. Therefore, I have restored an earlier rewrite of the page. If any salvageable content has been lost, please let me know so that I may assist in restoring it. Thanks in advance. 172 | Talk 22:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from reverting to an obsolete version and from removing large portions of well-referenced text. If you believe that the old article was in some aspects better than the current one (and I guess it is in the eye of the beholder), please try to make enhancements gradually. pivovarov (talk) 08:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the text was sourced to books by Richard Pipes and other notable scholars. Please do not make blanking, without even any explanations.Biophys (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate to simply replace a 25k article with a prior version of 10k that you like. However, I'm open to reviewing the content of of the current version, the 25k version to evaluate whether it has, in fact, deteriorated. See Talk:Totalitarianism/Comments. Fred Talk 15:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This version is as close as I can find to the "rewrite" by 172. He is simply replacing the results of two years of work with his version of April, 2007. Fred Talk 17:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI

If people who watch this page are also interested in how Wikipedia is governed, be sure to check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development . Slrubenstein | Talk 13:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the first to use the term?

I don't doubt that the claim "One of the first to use the term 'totalitarianism' in the English language was the Austrian writer Franz Borkenau" is properly sourced. But the OED's first quotation for 'totalitarianism' is 1926 and it has 4 quotations for 'totalitarian' before Borkenau (including one from Ezra Pound). There's no reason to think the term wasn't in widespread use in English before Borkenau, and, whatever his importance, I can't help felling that the claim "one of the first" is positively misleading. --Pfold (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

So what's the solution here? Homunculus (duihua) 06:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture section

Please provide some refs here per WP:RS. Biophys (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing this "Original Trilogy" Star Wars bullshit. If the 'Empire' was any system it's be authoritarian.119.161.71.12 (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)INFX.com.au

a list

I think a better detailed list of the totalitarian states today would be nice touch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.95.46.162 (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hitler, Stalin, but what about…

…Mao Zedong, the leader of totalitarian Communist China? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.198.49 (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

new states

What about new totalitarian states I mean everyone focuses on stalin and hitler they're dead move on we have new guys who fit this catigory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.67.61 (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

How about a section for ANTI-Totalitarianists in popular culture?

Would this be appropriate?

Benjamin Franklin, George Orwell, Bertrand Russell, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.8.149 (talk) 02:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Christopher Hitchens, Karl Jaspers, Noam Chomsky, Albert Camus, etc

99.9% of the world is anti-totalitarinism so it would be redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.100.86 (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

New addition

This statement in introduction is out of place. The term was suggested as early as 1920s and it is currently used as a valid concept in modern-day books by Robert Conquest and others. Statements like that might belong to body of the article if properly formulated and sourced.Biophys (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Robert Conquest isn't exactly neutral on this issue (being a paid propagandist and all). The statement was PERFECTLY sourced and even included excerpts from Achim Siegel's respectable book. Siegel is a scholar, not a polemicist like Conquest. Now the term was indeed created in the 1920s by Giovanni Gentile, and this should be mentioned, but the classical totalitarian paradigm was formulated by fanatical anti-communists like Zbigniew Brzezinski and Hannah Arendt. So, absolutely no reason for its removal.

AngBent (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent

This is only one of many interpretations of the subject: one that is shared by orthodox marxists/communists. It should be described in the article (probably in "criticism" section), but not in the introduction, unless we want to describe all different views in introduction. Most authors who wrote about the concept consider it to be valid, including the relatively recent book by Robert Conquest. Biophys (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Scholars and especially historians dismiss Conquest's sentimental ramblings as simplistic and a-historical devices (not to mention that Conquest was a paid propagandist and polemicist). When you say "most authors", I believe you think about journalistic works that can't really be considered credible references. As indicated in the refs, the traditional concept of totalitarianism served as an all-embracing Cold War ideology, and as a (successful) propaganda tool. People like Brzezinski and Friedrich were fighting the Cold War at the time, and didn't really care for scientific work. And in the academic community, the 1950s version of totalitarianism ("evil Soviet Empire, out to destroy the American way of life") enjoys minimal support at best. And as this is an encyclopedia, we can't accept people like Robert Conquest (or other Cold Warriors, American or Russian) as neutral, scholarly sources. For example, in the Italian elections of 1948, the Italian conservatives claimed that in Soviet Russia women were nationalized, and each man would have to "rent" his wife to his neighbors, if the Pcd'I won the elections. At the time, it was a serious discussion. Is it now?

AngBent (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent

"Scholars and especially historians dismiss Conquest's sentimental ramblings"? Who said? You? "We can't accept people like Robert Conquest."? That statement goes against WP:NPOV since his works qualify as secondary WP:RS per our rules here. Biophys (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to include Conquest (a paid propagandist), then you have to include Russian CPSU historians, to keep neutrality. And you can't of course disagree with the perfectly referenced lead section's assessment that totalitarianism was created as a Cold War ideology. I have already provided additional refs to Siegel's and Defty's. Perhaps the lead should also mention that totalitarianism was first mentioned in a positive sense by Italian fascists. I will work on that too

AngBent (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent

But your own direct quotation of the source [3] and other currently quoted sources do not support your assertion that the concept was created by "anti-communist Cold War warriors". Do you imply that Richard Pipes, Leopold Labedz, Franz Borkenau, Walter Laqueur, Sir Karl Popper, Eckhard Jesse, Leonard Schapiro, Adam Ulam, Raymond Aron, Claude Lefort, Richard Löwenthal, Hannah Arendt, Robert Conquest, Karl Dietrich Bracher, Carl Joachim Friedrich and Juan Linz were all "Cold War warriors"? If so, please provide sources that claim them to be "Cold War warriors". Biophys (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Nobody would doubt the fact that people like Zbigniew Brzezinski, (NSC under Carter) Robert Conquest (paid by the CIA) and Richard Pipes (NSC under Reagan) were Cold Warriors, and of the worst type. People like Claude Lefort and those of the Frankfurt School wrote influential works in their day, but the fact remains that the 1950s concept of totalitarianism was created as a Cold War expediency. The references given demonstrate this soundly. Now that the intro also mentions the original Italian creation of the term, I think the article is just fine. AngBent (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent

You are trying to discredit the concept by attacking some authors of the concept as "fascists", "anti-communists" and "Cold War warriors". But your source does not claim that. Instead, one should focus on criticism/discussion of the concept (which is the subject here), not people. But this can not be done in introduction. Biophys (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, who are you my friend? Why don't you sign your statement? I never used the word "fascist". I did use the term Cold Warriors, because nobody would deny it (the people I called such would take it as an honor). You say that my source does not claim that. I didn't use only one source, but five or six different sources. Here's a sample:

"Concepts of totalitarianism became most widespread at the height of the Cold War. Since the late 1940s, especially since the Korean War, they were condensed into a far-reaching, even hegemonic, ideology, by which the political elites of the Western World tried to explain and even to justify the Cold War constellation".

Can you disagree with that? If you ask me, I can provide a dozen similar sources. AngBent (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent

Your edit obviously tells about "fascists" as authors of the concept. Propaganda cliche like "anti-communists" and "Cold War warriors" must be avoided pe WP:terrorist. As about "far-reaching, even hegemonic, ideology, by which the political elites of the Western World tried to explain and even to justify the Cold War constellation", this is is an example of WP:SOAP. No, I can not agree with placing this in introduction.Biophys (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

But Italian fascists ARE the authors of the concept, and this existed in the article before I made any contributions, I just put it in the intro. (read Giovanni Gentile's books) If you study the history of the Cold War, you can't dismiss the Cold Warrior label for certain people. (And i wrote "Cold Warrior", not "Cold War warrior") If you think that "anti-communist" is an insult and not just a political viewpoint, then this is your view. And Achim Siegel's quotation (along with the many other sources I have added) isn't SOAP; it's a scholarly statement, backed by years of scientific research, which can't be really disputed. Can you dispute the Professor's assertion? This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. I want to hear your arguments, not just some linguistical sophistry. Otherwise, there is no point in discussing this further. AngBent (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)AngBent

I only said that second paragraph is too POVish and should not be in introduction. Perhaps someone will fix it in a future. Not a big deal.Biophys (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The lede

"The concept of totalitarianism was first developed in a positive sense in the 1920s by the Italian fascists.The dominant version of totalitarianism was created in the late 1940s and 1950s by anti-communist Cold Warriors, who sought to emphasize the supposedly "evil" nature of the Soviet Union and its alleged similarity to Nazi Germany, for propaganda purposes."

This is terrible, it gives the impression that the Soviet Union was not totalitarian when it is patently obvious that that they were. Thoughts on how best to fix this issue? The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC) I moved the lot here for discussion The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Lets start off with a source, Stankiewicz, W. J. (1993) In Search of a Political Philosophy: Ideologies at the Close of the Twentieth Century Routledge ISBN 978-0415088749 pp367-368. "COMMUNISM: THE HIGHEST STAGE OF TOTALITARIANISM" The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it quite clearly shows how the concept of "totalitarianism" was expanded to include the Soviet Union. Quigley (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No it gives the impression the that Soviet union were not totalitarian, it is POV and is full of weasel works. Are you of the opinion that the Soviets were not totalitarian? The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

How does it give that impression? By the word "supposedly"? Should Wikipedia call the Soviet Union "evil" directly then? Quigley (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What VM says directly below The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The lede is obviously a POV attempt at portraying Soviet Union as not really totalitarian but only "slandered" as such by "cold war warriors" and some conspiracy of "fascists". Jeez christ, we've been through this before, most non-fringe, sane, people, think that the SU was in fact totalitarian. You can argue about the details - how totalitarian it actually was - but the fact that it was, is not up for dispute. This is actually a quite sneaky way to do it though, I gots to say.

The whole section on Brzezinski and Friedrich is also an exercise in POV-through-undue-emphasis and needs to be cleaned up. Volunteer Marek  22:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the current last paragraph of the lede is a POV nightmare, and an annoyingly avoidable one at that. I see nothing wrong in principle about stating that the concept was particularly popular in the West as a means of highlighting parallels between Nazi Germany and the communists, but there surely is a simpler and less obtrusive way of stating that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's just remove second paragraph from the introduction as it was before [4]. The paragraph was unilaterally inserted by User:AngBent, as should be clear from discussion above at this page. Biophys (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Whereas I agree that the previous wording was inappropriate, the last Fut. Perf.'s version is quite adequate and useful. I see no reason for its removal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

FP`s rewrite is more neutral but it does not belong in the lede, section 3 or 4 would be more suited. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The lede should simply summarize content of the article. One can try improve the body of the article, and then make sure that the lede is consistent with the remainder of the text.Biophys (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I have decided to rewrite the architecture section first, It can be improved upon quite a bit after all the edifice complex is part and parcel of totalitarian regimes. I am looking through sources now and will rewrite it in a few days. The Last Angry Man (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The section Fut.Perf.'s edited does summarise what the article says (sections 4 and 5), and, therefore, it does belong to the lede. Re architecture, I am not sure the casual linkage between totalitarianism and architecture really existed (e.g., some EE countries with authoritarian government had the same architecture styles). I think, instead of re-writing we can simply remove it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Why remove it? It is well known the Nazis embarked on a massive building program for no reason other than to impress and intimidate foreign visitors. Like I said, the edifice complex is very much a part of totalitarian thinking, it is more than just a casual link. The Last Angry Man (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Totalitarianism affected many (if not all) areas of human activity, and I do not think we can speak about its effect on architacture specifically. In addition, I have seen no evidences in the literature that the giantic building were erected in Germany with the primary purpose to impress foreigners. It is worth mention also that the Stalinist style in architecture had much more in common with the Manhattan skyscrapers. In any event, since you expressed a desire to re-write this section, go ahead, and after looking at what you have done we will be able to speak more concretely.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Goebbels himself wrote of this, it was the basis of Speer`s construction plans, but I shall have to take a few days to write the section as I am a little busy. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure we can take Goebbels' words seriously, because most of what he wrote was propaganda, and sometimes a direct lie. Under "evidences" I meant some reliable secondary source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

(out)No Paul, it is not from his propaganda, it is from his personal correspondence and is discussed in a very reliable source. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Then it is this reliable source that we have to discuss, not Goebbels.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

We need better sources for the architecture section. I have not seen any reliable sources for "totalitarian architecture". When Ceaucescu tore down Bucharest and put up his buildings writers called it "fascist architecture", and the commentary was that he was inspired by Speer. Otherwise Communists appear to have kept existing public buildings rather than rebuilding. TFD (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

References

Unacceptable distortion of sources

I see that my fully-referenced contributions have been distorted in a truly egregious way. It can't be Wikipedia's policy to allow these things to go on. I understand that users of eastern european origin are uncomfortable with the lead section because of historical rivalries with the USSR/Russia, but this doesn't mean we should put nationalistic grievances ahead of serious scholarship. You can't really argue against my sources, they are the work of leading political scientists. The reason Wikipedia isn't taken seriously by many scholars is perfectly demonstrated in this discussion; people make their claims, but provide no reference for them. Reality is more important than consensus. And please, don't tell me that your grandparents were killed by Beria, that's not a scholarly argument... AngBent (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That was decided above by several editors per WP:Consensus. If you ask me, I would remove entirely the second paragraph from the introduction (as in previous stable version) and move it to the body of text. Would you agree? Biophys (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

While I doubt we should use some language elements from the AngBent's edits, I found them mostly right. Can't see a clear consensus here: several editors basically support the AngBent's version in the discussion above. I doubt we could speak about consensus against this version, where the main assertion seems to be properly sourced. GreyHood ^Talk 18:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It is properly sourced but it is presented as mainstream opinion and not an opinion of a single author. -- Vision Thing -- 19:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

As consensus was ignored the POV tag is back The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

TLAM, and all other participants. Whereas I myself am not satisfied with the current version of the lede, it seems to be properly sourced, so the issues may be mostly with the style and neutrality. Since the fragment tells mostly about "Cold War warriors", I suggest to exclude the sources written by such warriors, and look at the most recent non-leftist and non-conservative sources. Based on what they write, we will be able, I believe, to determine if the text is neutral. In any event, the language is unencyclopaedic, so I recommend at least to modify the style as a temporary measure.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed Cold Warriors and instead wrote "ideologically anti-communist journalists and social scientists". This in order to demonstrate my willingness to work in a collaborative manner. The other parts must stay as they are, being well-referenced and depicting the historical reality. I won't compromise any further. Overall, I found the participants of this discussion to be constructive, except The Last Angry Man. AngBent (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It tells "rabidly anti-communist" about respectable academics (who quoted in the body of article) right now. Looks like a BLP violation to me.Biophys (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "rabid" is not encyclpaedic. Removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Questioning motivation of respectable academics and saying that they wrote "for propaganda purposes" is unacceptable POV. -- Vision Thing -- 18:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It depends on how reliable source describe that. In any event, a user who added this text is supposed to provide the exact quote from the source he used to demonstrate that the source supports the edit he made.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

One of those academics is Hannah Arendt who is described by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as "one of the leading political thinkers of the twentieth century" and her book The Origins of Totalitarianism as "a major study of the Nazi and Stalinist regimes that soon became a classic". Even is his source supports the claim he is making it should be attributed and moved to the Criticism section. -- Vision Thing -- 09:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

"Questioning motivation of respectable academics and saying that they wrote "for propaganda purposes" is unacceptable POV." Exactly.This is Wikipedia, not Conservapedia. So, instead of complaining about Hannah Arendt, can someone really argue against my perfectly-referenced contributions? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a forum. AngBent (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Corruption

The section dealing with the differences between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes is very neat, however, I fear it is not reliable, especially considering the supposed level of corruption. According to the most recent survey (I can't recall the name of the organziation that provided it right now but you should be able to look it up no sweat), North Korea (word's only totalitarian regime) is in fact the most corrupt country in the world. So, I guess some changes would be in place. --Jaro7788 (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Totalitarian Regime vs. Representative Democracy

This section, which was added fairly recently, is poorly written, not integrated into the article, and shows a low level of critical thinking. It reads as though it was written by an American junior high school student during the Cold War. A more minor issue is that the sentence "Modern examples of totalitarian regimes are North Korea, Burma, Cuba, China and Zimbabwe." has been recently vandalized to refer only to North Korea. The description given in this section ignores the existence of totalitarian regimes (notably the Nazis) that came to power through representative democracy. Furthermore, by attempting to make this a binary distinction it ignores the fact that representative democracy has existed since ancient times, whereas totalitarianism is a modern phenomenon/theory Finally, the three references given in this section entirely fail to support its proposed binary classification. The netcharles.com and remember.org links discuss totalitarianism without claiming that it is the opposite of representative democracy. The stanford.edu link discusses representative democracy without ever mentioning totalitarianism. Because of these multiple issues, I'm deleting this section.--75.83.69.196 (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Picture of Stalin and Hitler together

It is not an illustration of totalitarism, it's an illustration of a special equality between stalinism an hitlerism. This equality as a statement is a field of research and discussions, and has nothing to do with totalitarism as a whole, it's only a part of it, though both regimes sure can be considered as totalitarian. The main picture for totalitarism article should cover all totalitarian regimes, not particular statement about special similarity, just like the main picture for Animals article covers all animals, not a pair of darwin's finches belonging to one family. I delete this ugly-shopped offensive propaganda, but please feel free to argue. Mclaudt (talk) 07:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I never heard of Hitler and Stalin meeting. The photomontage shows them at ease with one another, as they might have been at a conference. A very misleading image. Nothing wrong with the caption, but that can be put into plain text. I think there is a significant relationship between them as they acted in the same theater of operations using similar techniques, some of which they borrowed from the other, but that needs to be based on a good source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The caption literally says that the image is a photomontage. We can certainly add another disclaimer that Hitler and Stalin have never met. However, please note that the lead images in Classical music, Danish American, Spanish American or Marxism–Leninism display people who have never met together either. If we move the text out of the caption into plain text, the effect will be similar to removing the references: it will destroy integrity and will make the image subject to NPOV and NOR attacks.

The issue has actually been discussed here, see the topic Image in the lead being considered for deletion. I have even provided a quote from the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences which says that the concept of totalitarianism primarily reflects the view that Nazism and Communism had more commonalities than differences. The image is an accurate illustration of this concept, it respects NPOV per WEIGHT and it is a free replacement of an actual book cover. All of this is supported with the sources. pivovarov (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion you point to seems highly critical also. I don't disagree with the thesis of the image, but, frankly, an image should not have a thesis, at least not in our context. I know what a photomontage is and I know more or less the complete biography of Hitler and Stalin, and if it confuses me it has got to confuse other people. An encyclopedia should be a dull thing, just a summary of facts. It is a fact that they are often compared to one another and used as examples of totalitarianism, but the image together is simply wrong; it is made up. Essentially it is unsourced information, and, in fact, false. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You said that "International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences <...> says that the concept of totalitarianism primarily reflects the view that Nazism and Communism had more commonalities than differences" but it is not so, you lie. I have that encyclopedia, and on page 15791 there is a clean statement that totalitarianism covers at least five different meanings and contexts, so the most polemical one, used rhetorically by liberal democrats of Cold War period, has no more rights to be represented by an illustration than any other. Mc laudt (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The quote from L. Holmes' article Totalitarianism is above, right on this talk page, so your accusation is at the very minimum misleading. Now, on your own part, you refer to an IESBS article on the next page, but guess what? The image in question actually illustrates four (if not all five) meanings listed in R. Fine's article. Here is the full quote:

If it is right to say that the meaning of a concept is at least in part determined by its use, then we can find in the career of the concept of totalitarianism many distinct meanings. They include:

(a) its directly political use in the 1930s for or against the establishment of the Nazi and Stalinist regimes;
(b) its conventional use within postwar political science and political philosophy to define and denounce these regimes from the point of view of liberal democracy;
(c) its more radical use within critical theory to trace the linkages between what happened at Auschwitz and in the Gulag and the ‘normal’ forms of modern political life;
(d) its rejection, especially by Marxists, as an inherently ideological concept which falsely equates communism with fascism; and

(e) its reappropriation by postmodern social theorists as the prevailing potentiality of political modernity.

— R. Fine, Totalitarianism: Impact on Social Thought

pivovarov (talk) 03:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the strong reaction I have to it is that they could have met, but did not. Your arguments are fine in a NPOV context, but without the image. The book you cite which displayed a similar image probably had a different editorial policy. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

UNRESOLVED ISSUE Please stop edit warring forced by User:Eugene Pivovarov, he has not answered any direct questions, mentioned before. Again, illustration of a special equality between stalinism an hitlerism can not be an illustration of totalitarism, just like barion article can not be illustrated by only two from a whole family, being falsely painted together. We should picture all totalitarian regimes, or provide conceptual scheme of abstract totalitarian regime. Just like animals article, should depict all the main species, or principal scheme. We should wait for resolving this issue before adding any pictures. Mc laudt (talk) 05:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

New image seems to be way more neutral that previous offensive collage. But it still can not be the leading image for article, because, according to mentionned sources (IESBS), there is a bunch of contexts for totalitarianism, and this image depicts only one of them, namely the most arrogative and polemical one, used by propagandists of Cold War. Formulated totalitarianism criteria give us a series of pairs of equally totalitarian regimes, and there is no reason to depict only one pair. Note that even De Gaulle regime was mentionned as totalitarian (International Socialist Review, Vol.19 No.3, Summer 1958, pp.67-72), also remember that Mussolini's regime was the first object for "totalitarian" term. The use of image in lead section is very unbalanced and contradicts WP:WEIGHT. That picture could go well for one section of this article of Cold War era demagogy, not the article as a whole. Mc laudt (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Offensive image of "equality" between 卍 and ☭

If you go to source, it's an image from a series of Henri Max Corwin http://www.corwincollection.com/propaganda.html, illustrating common methods of propaganda, it has nothing to do with that particular conception of totalitarianism, used by Brzezinski and meant to be illustrated by this image.

From the first look, it easily can be interpreted as equality between these regimes/leaders, but the author directly suggested only similarity between one propaganda method, namely: slechts een kandidaat (the presence of one candidate only) http://www.corwincollection.com/red4.html So without that pre-knowledge, that image is very misleading, it's just a propaganda itself.

I propose to User:Eugene_Pivovarov- you are also a scientist, you know well that it is the formalization that is the base of any research, not emotions. I'm sure that it is possible to find a formalized diagram of Brzezinski's theory (if it is really a theory). I think the best image would be the scheme, that formalizes the essence of totalitariaism, that could depict and explain (by arrows and lines) the difference between totalitarian states and countries that pretend to not be considered as totalitarian, like USA. Mclaudt (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This article isn't even trying to fulfill NPOV here

Okay, most people think totalitarianism is bad, evil, etc, but merely presenting it as bad, evil, etc. is not going to help readers understand why people were attracted to join totalitarian movements in the first place. People in Russia, Italy, and Germany didn't just wake up one day and say "you know what, I'm going to support a tyrannical highly-authoritarian government led by an all-powerful movement". There were promises that totalitarian movements made. Italian Fascists emphasized that prior to their rise to power, liberal democracy in Italy was a failure - it couldn't achieve enough goals, that it lacked revolutionary zeal due to timid reformism, that petty parliamentary squabbles divided the country and delayed action, and most importantly that it was unstable and could not maintain order. The Italian Fascists said, "look at what we have done in this many years, in comparison to what the former liberal democracy achieved" - and whether people like it or not, it is true that the Italian Fascists achieved things that the former liberal democracy in Italy could not due to parliamentary division.--R-41 (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have cut down and rephrased the intro to at least give it some NPOV, but much more effort is needed.--R-41 (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This article needs to include examples of and/or information about Islamist/Islamic totalitarianism.

There are plenty enough real world examples, and reputable sources with information about this. Yet there is not a single mention of the word Islam, Islamic, or Islamist in the entire article. For example: Afghanistan under the Taliban, Iran and Saudi Arabia are all typical examples of totalitarian and Islamic/Islamist states. Anon12356 (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Totalitarian Government

<<Totalitarian Government>>

      Totalitarian a government that seeks a subordinate the individual to the state by controlling not only all political and economic matters, but also attitude, values, and beliefs of it's population; relating to a system of government in which one political group maintains complete control.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.166.128.111 (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC) 

Ba'athism

I am adding the Ba'athist regimes of Assad and Saddam Hussein (1) to recognize the totalitarian nature of such regimes, and (2) to distinguish them from more conventional 'authoritarian' regimes.Pbrower2a (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but could you provide a source?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Gun control RFC

There is an ongoing RFC that may be of interest to editors in this article. Talk:Gun_control#RFC Gaijin42 (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary and recent totalitarian regimes

Perhaps the article should mention contemporary and recent totalitarian regimes. For instance, North Korea is viewed as totalitarian. East Germany was viewed as totalitarian a significant part of the time between 1949 to 1990. Totalitarian regimes are not confined to history, but also occur in the present day. There are many people born (and in some cases still living) under these political regimes.185.14.167.6 (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Source 9?

Am I the only one that noticed the word 'porn' in the references?

LAN 20:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The ‘Saint’ Who Chopped Down Thor’s Sacred Tree

This is an example of a very early totalitarianism

Its during the time where Europe was Christianize and the old heritage was taken away. Also a great example how our west culture works in comparison to our old believes - or as well the Indians tribes etc.

One might also use the movie Avatar as an metaphorical example

source of explorations: http://www.hinduhumanrights.info/the-saint-who-chopped-down-thors-sacred-tree/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.231.25.67 (talk) 11:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, however it qualifies as being original research and a number of other things that Wikipedia is not. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

chess for the sake of chess

This is not a Mussolini quote, so I'll cut it. The source given attributes the quote to N. Krylenko. The article currently sates "He stated that ..." following right on the heels of another quote attributed to Mussolini.

Robert Conquest, as usual, provides no traceable source and very little context for the quote. He states that Krylenko made the remark "at a Congress of Chess Players in 1932". After the quote has served its purpose (lazy ad hominem against Krylenko, and by the fallacy of guilt by association, Lenin, who was the topic of that part of the book) scare mention is made of either Krylenko or his fanaticism for the remainder of the text.

I don't if Simon Sebag Montefiore has picked up on the quote or not, but Montefiore seems to be one of the few well-known authors on that period of Soviet history who (unlike Service and Conquest) maintains academic honesty instead of going out of his way to please the ghost of Joe McCarthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.2.32 (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Please read the talk page guidelines. Talk pages are not a soapbox. Your personal disdain for Robert Conquest notwithstanding, if you have a problem with sources, take it up at the correct venue, being the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Is ISIS totalitarian?

In an effort to recognize totalitarianism as something exclusively of Western origin (fascism and Communism)... I suggest ISIS. Absolute control of everything under its authority marks fascism (but not simply 'authoritarian conservatism' as under Pinochet or Salazar or the mad despotism of Idi Amin), one has ISIS as a group that

1. allows no pluralism 2. abandons any due process even as a continuing precedent 3. has a well-defined ideology as ultimate truth 4. commits mass murder 5. has a stated desire for expansion

Some of these sources are shaky, in part because we are discussing current events.

http://www.eurasiareview.com/28022015-the-totalitarian-face-of-isis-oped/ http://www.catholicanada.com/2015/02/27/the-totalitarian-face-of-isis/ http://www(DOT)breitbart(DOT)com/national-security/2015/02/12/ipt-guest-column-islamism-is-the-new-totalitarianism/ http://thediplomatinspain.com/en/the-spanish-government-accuses-isis-of-having-a-totalitarian-programme-for-iraq/

Pbrower2a (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pbrower2a. I am finding it a bit unclear as to what you are proposing. If you think ISIS is an illustrative example of the concept of totalitarianism, and therefore warrants inclusion in the article, then my suggestion would be that you craft a draft addition along those lines. You could do so in your user sandbox and then direct editors there to take a look. Cheers Andrew (talk) 06:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Purpose? To extend the definition of totalitarianism beyond Fascism and Marxism-Leninism into ideologies and political systems not part of the West.Pbrower2a (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Andrew's proposal seems reasonable. As you've noted yourself, the sources are potentially challengeable as being WP:RS, so a sandbox draft would allow editors to comment and, perhaps, find better quality sources. Whether or not, as editors of an encyclopaedic resource, we consider that ISIS meets the criteria is WP:OR unless we have solid secondary sources arguing the same. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is a new argument on whether ISIS is totalitarian. It is on a BBC site. The argument is that ISIS is a rejection of democracy in any form and traditional modes of Islamic government.

Sample:

Though al-Baghdadi constantly invokes the early history of Islam, the society he envisions has no precedent in history. It's much more like the impossible state of utopian harmony that western revolutionaries have projected into the future. Some of the thinkers who developed radical Islamist ideas are known to have been influenced by European anarchism and communism, especially by the idea that society can be reshaped by a merciless revolutionary vanguard using systematic violence. The French Jacobins and Lenin's Bolsheviks, the Khmer Rouge and the Red Guards all used terror as a way of cleansing humanity of what they regarded as moral corruption. Isis shares more with this modern revolutionary tradition than any ancient form of Islamic rule. Though they'd hate to hear it, these violent jihadists owe the way they organise themselves and their utopian goals to the modern West. And it's not just ideas and methods that Isis has taken from the West. Western military intervention gave Isis its chance of power. While Saddam was in charge, there were no jihadist movements operating in Iraq - none at all. With all the crimes Saddam's dictatorship committed, it was a regime that applied secular law and had made some steps towards emancipating women.

References

No, this is definitely a breach of WP:NOR / WP:SYNTH. You're using an op-ed piece, plus the language is unencyclopaedic. As was already discussed, you would have to find reliable sources actually calling ISIS/ISIL totalitarian. There's the further complication of its not being recognised as being a state. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Authoritarian and Totalitarian regimes

The section on authoritarian and totalitarian regimes is needed to show the differences between the types of government. It uses a valid source and the text is easily understood.

75.142.144.105 (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and it shows the difference. However part of text you just re-included is nearly impossible to understand. What does it mean "Role conception", "Ends of power" and "Legitimacy" in the Table? It tells about "Christian crusaders liberating the Holy Land from the unbelievers, or for the Aztecs believing that the sun would vanish if not prisoners of war were sacrificed regularly. "It includes long text from phrases like "Piekalkiewicz and Penn stress that ideocracies are dictatorships deriving their legitimation solely from their monistic ideology." Furthermore, that single quoted source claims as a fact that totalitarian systems have very low level of corruption, or that authoritarian systems have no official ideology. Not so according to many sources. If you can completely rewrite the text to make it understandable and better sourced, that's fine. Please do. My very best wishes (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

While we're about it, good catch on the Krylenko quote, IP 75.142.144.105. At some point, the use of the quote in the content was knocked around and somehow attributed to Mussolini. I think that it is worthy of inclusion in the article, but I have other priorities at the moment and don't have time to dredge through the history of the article at the moment to find out how it was originally included, so I'll paste it here along with a properly formatted reference:

He stated that "We must finish once and for all with the neutrality of chess. We must condemn once and for all the formula 'chess for the sake of chess', like the formula 'art for art's sake'. We must organize shockbrigades of chess-players, and begin immediate realization of a Five-Year Plan for chess."

--Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Lacks clarity

The article is more about totalitarian regimes than the phenomena. --Ekvastra (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Totalitarianism as a Cold War tactical stance.

Using the term propaganda might be going too far, but the sources for that section are unequivocal that the use of the term in the context of the Cold War served a tactical purpose for many of the people using it. (Siegel: "they were condensed into a far-reaching, even hegemonic, ideology, by which the political elites of the Western world tried to explain and even to justify the Cold War constellation", Guilhot: "In this context, the concept of totalitarianism was itself an asset. As it made possible the conversion of prewar anti-fascism into postwar anti-communism.") This is an important part of the modern understanding of how the mid-20th century studied the concept of totalitarianism, and it's well-sourced there, so it's a violation of NPOV to describe it as if they were merely passively recognizing obvious similarities (the sources make it clear that they were deliberately attempting to draw similarities in order to serve a political purpose.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Since it seems to have gotten reverted at some point... I'll reiterate the quotes above, which are our cites for the sentnece in question: "Concepts of totalitarianism became most widespread at the height of the Cold War. Since the late 1940s, especially since the Korean War, they were condensed into a far-reaching, even hegemonic, ideology, by which the political elites of the Western world tried to explain and even to justify the Cold War constellation", and "...in this context, the concept of totalitarianism was itself an asset. As it made possible the conversion of prewar anti-fascism into postwar anti-communism." The alternative wording (merely "highlighting similarities") makes the shift to focusing on totalitarianism as a concept sound like a neutral observation, which the sources specifically say it was not. --Aquillion (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

While one can source a relationship of the concept to the "Cold war", this is not at all a propaganda term (as one could conclude from your edit). The term is generally used in scholarly literature and scientifically valid. The "Cold war" can be mentioned somewhere in the body of page, but not in the lead. It does not appear at all the EB entry, for example [5], or in the lead of a better written page on another wiki [6]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

So, no, this is not a "Cold War tactical stance", but a scientific term widely used in scholarly sources, significantly with regard to Nazism that has nothing to do with Cold War. My very best wishes (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica is not itself an ideal source, since it's not going to go into as much depth as the other sources we use - certainly it is silly to dismiss the published work of multiple established experts in the field that way. And we cannot use another wiki as a source. Regardless, we must accurately summarize the sources we do use, all of which are unequivocal on the point that the prominence of totalitarianism as a concept in Cold War era-discourse was at least in part in order to justify Cold War political divisions by linking them to the Nazis. If you object to my edit making it sound too much like propaganda, feel free to propose an alternate wording; but we must state, in some form, that the prominence of the term during the Cold War was at least partially driven by political considerations, since this is extremely well-attested to in the sources. (If you feel those sources are inaccurate, or being given undue weight, or that I'm misinterpreting them, feel free to explain why in more detail - but "it's not in Britannica and also isn't in the French version of this article" isn't an argument with any weight to it, certainly not enough to omit something with five high-quality sources.) I also object to you moving it to a new "criticism" section; none of the sources cited there are critics of totalitarianism as a concept, nor is their description of its history worded as a criticism. Beyond that, see WP:CSECTION - criticism section are a bad way to organize articles in general. --Aquillion (talk) 05:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Once again, the term was widely applied in scholarly sources to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Therefore, you can not paint it as "Cold War tactical stance" in the lead and text of the page. Yes, I agree that the prominence of the term during the Cold War should be included, and it is included in the body of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, your own personal opinions about how it was used and what that means aren't important; what matters is what the sources say. They specifically say that that, to the West, "...in this context, the concept of totalitarianism was itself an asset and that it it was a concept by which the political elites of the Western world tried to explain and even to justify the Cold War constellation". I feel that those quotes paraphrase accurately to "during the Cold War, it was used as an ideological tool." If you have a better paraphrase, feel free to suggest it; but your preferred version (The concept was described as a part of political discourse during the Cold War) clearly omits the key point of most of the sources cited in the section. The sources do not simply say that it was part of the political discourse, but that it was intentionally used by Western anti-Communists to convert pre-war anti-Fascist fervor into post-war anti-Communist fervor. This makes no commentary on whether that conversion was justified or not - using it as an asset to that end isn't wrong if you think that Fascism and Communism do share this common thread - but the point is that either way, it became popular during the Cold War because it was a powerful rhetorical tool used by anti-Communists; and this needs to be front-and-center because we have numerous sources saying that that's one of the main reasons the term became so prominent - not because of neutral, impartial observers, but because it was a valuable asset to Cold War-era anti-Communists who benefited from intentionally casting their struggle as an extension of the struggle against Fascism. If you want to argue the sources are wrong about that (which seems to be what you're getting at, since you're arguing that the term could not have been used as a political tool), you need to provide other sources directly disputing them, or provide some more coherent argument that I'm putting too much weight on them. Also, I noticed you've removed "perceived" twice; explain? Also, please be more careful with your reverts - this blanket revert reverted a lot more than just the "cold war tactical stance" wording you objected to! --Aquillion (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

What is my personal opinion? That the term was applied to Nazi Germany and Italian fascists, systems that existed before Cold War? Those are simply facts. Once again, we already prominently mentioned that the term was also used in the Col War context you are talking, but the concept is much wider than that. And no, what you call "blanket revert" was not a revert, and it was not deletion of any content from the page. My very best wishes (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Nobody denies that the term was applied to Nazi Germany and Italian fascists before the cold war; this is a fact. It is also a fact that the increased usage during the cold war was a tactical effort by Western anti-Communists to convert pre-war anti-Fascist fervor into post-war anti-Communist fervor, and this must be covered adequately in the article. I have repeatedly pointed to the sources establishing that fact, and you have not objected to them in any way. Your opinion seems to be that these things (the fact that it was a pre-existing term, which was used during the Cold War for tactical purposes by Western anti-communists) contradict each other; but that's not what the sources say - it is purely your own feeling. Again, I'll reiterate, what I want to do is paraphrase the sources when they say that "...in this context, the concept of totalitarianism was itself an asset. As it made possible the conversion of prewar anti-fascism into postwar anti-communism." and "they were condensed into a far-reaching, even hegemonic, ideology, by which the political elites of the Western world tried to explain and even to justify the Cold War constellation". Give me an alternative paraphrase for them if you feel I'm getting it wrong; but my reading is that you want those quotes omitted entirely, which isn't acceptable given that they're both reputable scholars writing specifically about how and why the term was used in the Cold War, which is a major focus of the article. It is a fact that the use of the term in that era was, at least in part, driven by ideology and the political needs of the people who applied it to their ideological opponents; this isn't contradictory with your assertion that the term was also a pre-established thing with its own independent meaning. It doesn't even mean that the people using it that way were necessarily wrong, merely that it was an "asset" to them and that the way they framed and analyzed the political landscape in a way that lumped Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union together were not ideologically neutral decisions or purely impartial observations. This is well-attested to in the sources, and you cannot credibly deny it to the point of trying to omit any mention of it entirely. (I feel it belongs in the lead, but we should at least get through your argument over the sources before we come back to that point.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment

I've moved away from the lead the part about Gil Robles as it is glaringly undue. Additionally I find somewhat odd to find a direct quote without context predating most of the historiographical usage. Currently as it stands, out of the blue, without real context, it stills reads like a bit of OR, even in the body of the article.--Asqueladd (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Lack of mention of totalitarianism and authoritarianism in the Communist article

The fascist page mentions those two words 20 times, the communist page mentions them 0. I find that odd. I understand that totalitarianism and authoritarianism are not a dejure aspect of the philosophy but they are a defacto aspect of the real world application of communism. Dcut74 (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

This has been the subject of something an unregistered user's been trying to edit war on, so I'll add to this old conversation. It certainly holds true that many a Marxist-Leninist state could be classified as totalitarian. However, they do not hold a monopoly on communism in theory nor practice. Shall we describe the anarcho-communist Free Territory of Ukraine as totalitarian? The autonomous Shinimin zone? Revolutionary Catalonia? The Zapatista municipalities? Marinaelda? What we really mean, clearly, is Stalinism. Docktuh (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Once again, Stalin wasn't the only totalitarian Communist leader, so no, what we really mean isn't "Stalinism", none of the mentioned territories were Communist, and in Revolutionary Catalonia at least, repression against right-wingers, churches, etc, existed just like in Communist regimes. -- 179.183.159.3 (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The IP has right, Communism should not be excluded, pretty much known of it's totaliarian being outside Stalin, by many other countries in Central-Eastern Europe much later...(KIENGIR (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC))

The Soviet Union itself started to liberalize after Stalim's death in 1953, and all reliable sources confirm that the era of totalitarianism in the USSR and most of Eastern Europe ended after Khrushchev took office. Of course, the USSR was still authoritarian, but its rule was no longer so repressive so as to constitute totalitarianism. Another example would be János Kádár's government in Hungary, which was substantially less repressive than most Warsaw Pact countries, and Yugoslavia under Tito, which followed its own version of state capitalism as opposed to a centrally planned economy, and allowed its citizens to travel to the West unimpeded. And we aren't even mentioning the plethora of libertarian strands of communism that are not authoritarian or totalitarian, such as anarcho-communism, libertarian Marxism, christian communism, council communism, etc. 91.127.132.128 (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you miss the period after Stalin's death, and the horror reign of Mátyás Rákosi, which led eventually to the Hungarian uprising of 1956. Regardless of the late Goulash-period, it has been still pure totalitarian, one-party oppression.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC))

Just noticed the recent edits @Asqueladd:, no way, if you read the lead about totalitarianism, if perfectly fits i.e. to Hungary even after Stalin's death a long-long time until the 80's, anyway @Rjensen: has right, and denying this is not fringe but rather seems a whitewashing of Communist oppression and crimes.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC))

Reliable sources clearly state that totalitarianism in the USSR ended after Stalin's death in 1953 and the resulting thaw under Nikita Khrushchev.

Likewise, there was political and economic liberalization under János Kádár, and the regime's control over Hungary was no longer so pervasive so as to constitute totalitarianism. In fact, its improved human rights record compared to other Eastern Bloc countries and its period of economic prosperity led to Hungary being dubbed as the "happiest barrack in the Eastern Bloc". Of course, the MSZMP was still the dominant party, but the reign of terror from Rákosi's era ended by the early 1960s.

And you are also forgetting that it was the Soviet Union under Khrushchev that recommended Imre Nagy shall lead Hungary after Rákosi's death, and totalitarianism in Hungary ended under Nagy's government, although his attempts at deeper reforms were forcibly cut short by the USSR in 1956, who wrongly feared that Nagy would align Hungary with the west. With all of this along with libertarian variants such as anarcho-communism et al in mind, it would be erroneous to unilaterally classify communism as inherently "totalitarian", especially since there are only a few such countries that would fit the specific criteria for being totalitarian, and communism doesn't even list totalitarianism as a basic principle. 91.127.132.128 (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

what is totalitarianism? Raymond Aron named five main signs of totalitarianism:

1) One-party has a monopoly on political activity only.

2) A state ideology upheld by the ruling party that is given status as the only authority.

3) State information monopoly that controls mass media for distribution of official truth.

4) State controlled economy with major economic entities under the control of the state.

5) Ideological terror that turns economic or professional actions into crimes. Violators are exposed to prosecution and to ideological persecution. Aron drew parallels between Soviet communism, Nazism and Italian Fascism. Aron considers all three political regimes to be totalitarian. [see Democracy and Totalitarianism (1968)... I think USSR always had these 5 as did Hungary at the time. We are talking about governments here. not various writers who are not speaking abouyt actual Communist governments. Rjensen (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear IP,

thank you that you akcnowledged that in Hungary there has been a totalitarian Communist rule (you jalmost avoided this an referred to later eras when some circumstances became a bit reliefed, but in fact did not change the system), and @Rjensen:'s criteria held until 1989...it is anyway not about the basic principles, but in fact what Communism really was...and we add as well categories to pages that even partially apply, so this is not an argument...it can be fairly added, along with the near end result of 100 million deaths caused widespread in the world of Communist totlaitarian regimes.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC))

Article structure

I think that, generally speaking, per WP:CSECTION a criticism section is not a good way to arrange an article; if a criticism is noteworthy, it should generally be included as a response to the view it's criticizing. If it's not noteworthy, it should be excluded. Criticism sections cause problems in both respects - separating responses and critiques from their context; and turning into dumping grounds where non-notable criticisms accumulate just to fill out the sections. Beyond that, I feel that a timeline structure is probably the best way to arrange the article, since, broadly, most coverage and usage of the term assesses it in three different lights (WW2, Cold War, and modern-ish); many sources identify clear differences in the way the term was used in each era, or discuss it explicitly in the context of one era or another. --Aquillion (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that "criticisms" section can be removed/renamed/reworded. However, you continue incorrectly trying to paint it as a "Cold War tactical stance". What your version of "Cold war" section describes (Elaborate guiding ideology. Single mass party, typically led by a dictator. System of terror, using such instruments as violence and secret police.) is actually not Cold War era research, but applicable to Nazism, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, if you want to argue the sources, you must present sources of your own, not your personal argument. The term itself is not solely a tactical stance, but its usage can be ideologically or politically-driven (and it often is!); to that end, we have multiple sources saying that "...in this context, the concept of totalitarianism was itself an asset. As it made possible the conversion of prewar anti-fascism into postwar anti-communism." Do you disagree with what those sources say? Do you feel I'm misreading them? What, precisely, is your objection to it, and how would you cover what those sources say regarding its use during the Cold War specifically? The sources are clear that Cold War-era research and usage of the term in the West were at least partially ideologically-driven, and that they were applicable to Nazism specifically because Western anti-Communists used the term, in that era, as an intentional effort to tie the struggle against Nazism to the struggle against Communism. Do you dispute that fact? Do you feel that I'm misreading the sources, or paraphrasing them incorrectly? Or do you disagree with what the sources themselves say? --Aquillion (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Should we included Trump in the discussion on totalitarianism?

I'm not trolling nor am I kidding on here but we should have Donald Trump as an example on this article on totalitarianism. Trump is becoming a dictator and I am not being funny or kidding around, he shows the characteristics of Stalin and Hitler everyday and I think that someone on here should consult with Timothy Snyder or other experts warning about Trump and include Donald Trump and the United States as an example of totalitarianism because of his distain for the political institutions in this country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.121.237 (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

This (1) violates NPOV, (2)makes assumptions of events that have yet to happen in America and are generally seen as unlikely to happen, and (3) does not even fit any definition of totalitarianism.

To be sure, critics of Donald Trump often accuse him of compromising the heritage of American democracy and being more despotic or dictatorial than any previous President of the United States. But this said, we have yet to see the elimination of opposition parties, a purge of his Party, mass jailing of government officials, journalists, creative people, or academics. He may offend the sensibilities of multitudes, but so will any elected leader of any democracy.

Donald Trump is not even a dictator yet, even if one considers American democracy terribly flawed, as I do. Government by lobbyists responsible solely to their paymasters is not democracy. I see even more evidence that Vladimir Putin is totalitarian.

People are not facing sham trials after saying things that the President dislikes. People are not 'disappearing'. Authors are not being told to withhold a book critical of Trump if they know what is best for them. Pbrower2a (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Why is Abdulaziz Ibn Saud the first picture in this article? Why is he included at all?

It's rather odd that his picuter not only be included but that it's the first one, when he or his country are not even being mentioned in the article.

I can't possibly be the only one puzzled by this; when did we agree that Saudi Arabia is a prime example of totalitarianism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.4.252.243 (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia is a traditional monarchy with a largely free-enterprise system. Unlike most dictatorships it does not pretend to be a democracy. It has a love-it-or-leave-itattitude, at least for disgruntled men. Pbrower2a (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the "Selection of portraits" should be removed - not just the first one. The images should definitely correspond to and illustrate the text. One might wonder why Pol Pot was excluded (our article currently describes him as a "revolutionary" in the LEDE's first sentence), and Saddam Hussein is not discussed in the article either.Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein of course modeled his repressive regime in part upon Nazi Germany, but more significantly upon Stalin's Soviet Union. He may have had to accommodate Islamic sensibilities even if he regularly murdered anyone who used Islamic arguments against his tyranny and corruption. Much like Hitler, who dared not attack Christianity as such, he dared not attack Islam. Saddam Hussein had Stalin-like rigged elections in which only his Socialist Baath Party could win anything. He sought to make Iraq more modern -- but only in a way that glorified him and enhanced his control.

Like Hitler and Stalin he always had the proclivity for expansionism. (But remember that his opposition to Jews is dissimilar in cause to that of Hitler. Anti-Zionism, and not Hitler's racist antisemitism, is part of the ideology of many Arab and Muslim countries. The anti-Zionist ideology of Arab nationalism is not to send the Jews to gas chambers so much as it is to 'drive them into the sea'. This anti-Zionism would be perfectly happy if Israeli Jews were to return to such places as Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, and Germany where there once were large Jewish populations through their own efforts.Pbrower2a (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I've now sorted the pictures into a rough chronological/significance order. The top image, which will also feature in the pop-up preview, is now Hitler, who was pretty much the Ur-totalitarian. -- The Anome (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

On my significant change to the first sentence of this article to prevent it going further than the cited material

I've changed the first sentence so that it matches what the cited sources actually says. The cited source does *not* say that totalitarian states seek to control "every aspect". It says the exact opposite: that the Soviet Union did NOT do this, but only attempted to control public and private life "where feasible". I will leave this in the discussion for comment. Mr G (talk) 06:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It is problematic to use Robert Conquest for the definition of totalitarianism, since the opinion of one historian does not necessarily reflect consensus WP:CONSENSUS and in this case in deed there is no consensus among scholars. However, in this case Robert Conquest's definition will suffice for now as a temporary compromise as long as we do not embellish at the same time in a way that contradicts Conquest himself and makes "totalitarian" seem like a cartoonish idea, rather than a way that real world governments have sometimes described themselves or their predecessors. Mr G (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Problems with using Robert Conquest's definition of totalitarian.

Robert Conquest claims that the Soviet Union was "totalitarian" because it sought to interfere into public and private life "wherever feasible". The problem with stating this definition as fact is that it is not consensus; it is just one historian's opinion. It should be irrelevant, but I happen to disagree with it. When has been feasible for totalitarian governments to intervene, but not in their interests, have they intervened or not? I think it is obvious that they do not necessarily intervene wherever feasible, since it is not always in their interests to do so. Regardless of my personal position, there is no scholarly consensus around Robert Conquest's definition either.

The Cambridge, Oxford Living, Shorter Oxford and Miriam Webster definitions of "totalitarian" are perhaps slightly better, but I think we can get a even better definition by combining the most objective elements of each of them with the objective elements of Robert Conquest's so that the definition is something like: "a system of government that subordinates all institutions to the government, prohibits opposition parties, restricts individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control over public and private life". Mr G (talk) 06:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)