Totalitarianism and Communism

[Red Fighter 1073]

Totalitarianism- A form of government in which the ruler has absolute power. this ruler decides up all laws, processions, and other related topics. in short, totalitarianism is basically a dictatorship. In Totalitarianism, one person is the absolute ruler. for example, hitler's reign was an obvious dictatorship.

Communism-A system in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people. This government takes away private ownership of land. in short, this kind of a phrase could be used. "you dont own your land, the government does." though, obviously this statement does not pertain exclusively to the subject of land. it has to do with many more things. for example, in the show family guy, a person states "in communism, you dont own your car. car owns you!"

although these forms of government are looked down upon by the masses, they do have some pros and cons. which form of government is better in ruling a country?? which form of government would people be rather ruled upon?? Which form is better in the quickness of getting things done??

[Lockeownzj00]

Neither? Really, those are simplistic deifnitions. I love Family Guy, but to seriously debate on political theory you need more fleshed out definitions. They get the job done, but you'd get a better summary reading the series of articles linked to these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

I hate to be in the back waving his hands saying "anarchism!" or anything again, but not just that--why is it totalitarianism vs. communism? Besides the fact that there are countless other government structures in the world (or lack thereof), present or theoretical, the communism of today is no way truly communism and often seguegs into totalitarianism and fascism.

Even if I weren't a psuedo-anarchist, I'd have to say totalitarianism is an obvious no--and I will explain.

Absolute power simply can not exist. The bruden is too great and too much must be sacrificed--it's the idea that anything even has to be sacrificed "for the greater good." That's a Big Brother philosophy. That's 1984. And when you can convince your people that that's a valid form of government (fascism), you're even closer to Orwell's dystopia.

I've talked about objectivity before, and this is it taken to an extreme. Abuse of authority is the number one reason (as an anarchist) for my opposition TO authority. But, to play devil's advocate, couldn't one theoretically elect a leader so sound and great that they would actually advance society? This wouldn't happen, because in order for him to advance and help his civilzation, he or she would immediately dismantle the unequal totalitarian regime, and at the very least shoot for a faux-democracy.

Communism, too, is flawed--it attempts to revolt against the dictatorship of the elite and only succeeds in becoming Madame Defarge--rather than control by the rich elite, it is the control by the laborers, and this still creates an imbalance in hierarchy, and this would inevitably lead the laborer class to a higher social status--becoming elites themselves and rendering what they have done useless. It has already happened in the so-called "communist" states of today. And from an anarchist perspective, communism tries to solve the problem but falls flat on its back because it still tries to retain that form of hierarchy that is the state government.

Also, it's interesting how you put it:

which form of government would people be rather ruled upon??

The concept that people need to be ruled. They are within the box. They are caught up in the game--they keep trying to repair the crudely-made legs that hold up our system...take out the legs of the table and build a new one

[Red Fighter 1073]

Absolute power simply can not exist. The bruden is too great and too much must be sacrificed--it's the idea that anything even has to be sacrificed "for the greater good." That's a Big Brother philosophy. That's 1984. And when you can convince your people that that's a valid form of government (fascism), you're even closer to Orwell's dystopia.

you bring up good points. though, with dictatorships you forget hitler's reign. also, all governments have flaws in them. just look at america's government system. democracy. with democracy, things get done slowly. this is because of the different opinions of the people. it takes too long for something to get done. in a dictatorship, in some ways, the time to make a decision is only marred by how long the tyrant takes to make up his mind.

I've talked about objectivity before, and this is it taken to an extreme. Abuse of authority is the number one reason (as an anarchist) for my opposition TO authority. But, to play devil's advocate, couldn't one theoretically elect a leader so sound and great that they would actually advance society? This wouldn't happen, because in order for him to advance and help his civilzation, he or she would immediately dismantle the unequal totalitarian regime, and at the very least shoot for a faux-democracy.

yes, but you are then saying that in totalitarianism, the outcome of this government is always bad. this form of government does not represent evil or bad "omens". just look at caesar's rule. he made many reforms in the Roman society.

Communism, too, is flawed--it attempts to revolt against the dictatorship of the elite and only succeeds in becoming Madame Defarge--rather than control by the rich elite, it is the control by the laborers, and this still creates an imbalance in hierarchy, and this would inevitably lead the laborer class to a higher social status--becoming elites themselves and rendering what they have done useless. It has already happened in the so-called "communist" states of today. And from an anarchist perspective, communism tries to solve the problem but falls flat on its back because it still tries to retain that form of hierarchy that is the state government

.

but, isnt how you mention communism with the laborers having the control leaning towards democracy?? this statement then doesnt state the real communism but rather the government, democracy. and another thing is how can the laborers gain a higher social status when they pretty much dont own anything?? also, how would what they have done become useless after gaining this increase in status??

[Dynamite220]

Communism is not a form of government. It is a system of economics. There is no law that says a democratic government can't also be communist. That is the kind of government that Ho Chi Minh wanted to create in Vietnam.

This is a common mistake, as most equate communism with Cuba and the Soviet Union and North Korea which are comunist totalinarianisms, but China is a communist republic.

As far as what Lockeownz was saying, I have to agree that both systems are fundamentaly flawed, but only as far as all systems created men are going to be flawed, including anarchy and democracy. That table is never going to be level. The legs we're on may not be the best, but they're all we've got. Starting over would mean hard times, and while i'm not totaly against that, some hard times may be just what America needs, there would be many others who disagree.

[Lockeownzj00]

n a dictatorship, in some ways, the time to make a decision is only marred by how long the tyrant takes to make up his mind.

I honestly don't know where this is coming from. I've only seen this "the great leader will make his decision" type of outcome in Sci-Fi. The simple fact that he is created as this godly figure automatically makes him looking out for his own interests.

yes, but you are then saying that in totalitarianism, the outcome of this government is always bad. this form of government does not represent evil or bad "omens". just look at caesar's rule. he made many reforms in the Roman society.

Yes, I am saying it is always bad. Let me use an example with a group everyone LOVES to reference--the Nazis. I would like you to look at the line of thought, rather than the literal actions of the group. It is a good example in my opinion because most of us agree that a Nazi is not a "good" thing.

Let us say you are a Nazi. Now--because you are, I would say, a) you are not smart. How can I say this? Are there not intelligent Nazis? Technically, yes--but since the Nazi philosophy inherently incorporates racism, a hateful and flawed idealogy, then, if you are a "true" Nazi, you are by definition not smart enough to realise the illogic involved in racism. Thus I conclude all Nazis are flawed in their thinking. Why? The ideas are based on a flawed concept.

So I say the same with totalitarianism. It doesn't matter how "smart" one is, or the intentions, there is no "good" dictatorship or "good" totalitarian state.

but, isnt how you mention communism with the laborers having the control leaning towards democracy?? this statement then doesnt state the real communism but rather the government, democracy. and another thing is how can the laborers gain a higher social status when they pretty much dont own anything?? also, how would what they have done become useless after gaining this increase in status??

How is it leaning towards democracy? Again, I implore you read up on Communism. All this is doing is creating a reversal of roles: In true communism, the laborers, the proletariat, now lead the people, but by leading the people they by definition are no longer laborers and have once again created a rift that has only benefited their class.

It wuold be idealogically useless, like all past Communist revolutions. Why? Because the revolution was for an ostensible change and a movement towards greater peace and it "succeeded" in the sense that the revolutionaries' personal gain increased; they "won" and are now in seats of power. But their society did not win and their promises were not fulfilled; they have failed and lost sight of their original purpose.

I realise all things are imperfect--another thing I have said; all is subjective. But whenever anyone says something like "everythings imperfect therefore lets be ambivalent about this/agnostic about that," I just say, I'm trying to reduce the suffering--or rather, I want to. Society can't eradicate racism. Society can't eradicate sexism. Society can't eradicate religion, war, famine...the sheer number of people always guarantees a percentage of conservatives, a percentage of war-mongers, religious nuts, racists, sexists, whatever they may be. My goal, or my desired goal is to simply decrease the global amount. Rather than 92% of the world being religious, I'd prefer that 30% were. Rather than superfluous wars being fought, I wish we could have next to none. Instead of this system of hierarchy where you have an illusion of choice, I would rather see more people satisfied.

And I don't think it's idealistic--I'm cynical about life. But I know there are things in this world that can change, and that I hope will. Hopefully for the better. There's a phrase that encapsulates it all, for the better. If I believed in objective 100% goods and 100% wrongs, then I'd say they'd change for what is right, or they are spiraling down to what is wrong. [almost]* Nothing is absolute. There is no accurate approximation. But we can sure try to push it in one direction or another.

*atheist clause

[Red Fighter 1073]

im sorry, but i refuse to think that any one thing, no matter what it may be, contains only flaws and does no good to society. i think you used too much of a narrow-minded thought to think that a totalitarian government is only flawed. i admit that i dont like this form of government, and i dont support it. but, like i said, you used too much a bias in your thoughts.

Quote:
n a dictatorship, in some ways, the time to make a decision is only marred by how long the tyrant takes to make up his mind.



I honestly don't know where this is coming from. I've only seen this "the great leader will make his decision" type of outcome in Sci-Fi. The simple fact that he is created as this godly figure automatically makes him looking out for his own interests.

ok, i screwed up on the wording of that one. the time it takes to make a decision in a dictatorship is so much less than in a democracy(i keep using democracy, because many people are from the US, im assuming..) in a democracy, the president is always held back on his decision-making because of the power of other people who can veto his decision. he cant decide to possibly bomb a country with nukes and not expect the other branches of the government to create an uproar on his decision. in a totalitarian government, the main ruler doesnt really have anyone else, that he/she to worry about when the decision is being made. sure, there is the common folk, but if they werent held down by the government, it wouldnt be much of a dictatorship. or atleast, it really wouldnt last very long..

So I say the same with totalitarianism. It doesn't matter how "smart" one is, or the intentions, there is no "good" dictatorship or "good" totalitarian state.

once again, i say that you should look back to the days of julius caesar. he was considered a great reformer and conqueror and did a lot for Rome. isnt Caesar's rule a dictatorship?? ill even say some of the reforms he made for Rome if you want me to.

Julius Caesar's Reforms: he redistributed state lands and founded new colonies giving land to ex-soldiers who had none. He began public work projects which included building many roads,buildings and draining marshes which gave jobs to thousands of Roman citizens who hadnt been able to find work. in order to stop a rebellion of the poor, he made all gladitorial games free to the public, which gave the plebians(lower class) something more to do. He doubled the size of the Senate of the Roman Republic, which made each senator less powerful and gave business people a chance to be in the senate. He cut back the activities of the publicans. He gave Roman citizenship to Greeks, Spaniards, and Gauls. Now please dont say that he wasnt a good dictator..

The bruden is too great and too much must be sacrificed--it's the idea that anything even has to be sacrificed "for the greater good."

have you ever thought about what happens in war?? if you think about how many deaths have occured because of these wars, then you would think about sacrifice. i realize that ALL wars arent necessary, but think back to the american revolution. There were many people who died in that war. obviously, the casualties were a big sacrifice but sometimes, this is necessary for "the greater good". in the revolution's case, the greater good would be considered the US not be taken over by the British..

Quote:
which form of government would people be rather ruled upon??



The concept that people need to be ruled. They are within the box. They are caught up in the game--they keep trying to repair the crudely-made legs that hold up our system...take out the legs of the table and build a new one

well, yes. in some cases you need to be ruled upon. its like in a kindergarten classroom.(not THE best of examples, but it brings the point across)just think what would happen if there werent a ruler or in this case, a teacher. yup, thats right! "utter chaos"(exaggerated a bit).

or in some cases, you can use human physcology. i believe it is human nature that with certain people, their personalities beckon them to be the leader of the pack and be in control. but, really, there has to have been atleast ONE time when you wanted to be the leader.

also, without rule, there would be jumble of things. or you can think of rule as in "order" or "organization". when someone rules a place, that place MOSTLY becomes more organized, and less chaotic. i cant imagine a modern day/historic society without some kind of ruling power. well, being nit-picky you COULD say the dark ages, but still..

[Viktor Von Russia]

Originally Posted by red fighter idiot guy1073

once again, i say that you should look back to the days of julius caesar. he was considered a great reformer and conqueror and did a lot for Rome. isnt Caesar's rule a dictatorship??

Caesar's rule a dictatorship? You mention the Senate yourself in your very next paragraph!

[phil_]

Originally Posted by red_fighter_idiot_guy1073

(i keep using democracy, because many people are from the US, im assuming..)

I always hate the smart alec who points this out, but it's happened too many times. Rfig1017, have you ever voted on a bill? Have you ever written a piece of legislation? Has anyone you personally know done so? No? Right, that's because the USA isn't a democracy, where all citizens vote directly on issues, it's a republic. You or your parents elect people to represent you. That's a republic.

in a democracy, the president is always held back on his decision-making because of the power of other people who can veto his decision.

Not all democracies have/had presidents, but in the one you're referencing (USA), the President has veto power, not Congress.

he cant decide to possibly bomb a country with nukes and not expect the other branches of the government to create an uproar on his decision.

Isn't that basically, sans nukes, what GW did at the beginning of Operation: Iraqui Freedom? Wasn't there an uproar? Yeah, I believe there was. So why are there multiple armies in Iraq right now? Oh right, because uproar no longer means opposition.

in a totalitarian government, the main ruler doesnt really have anyone else, that he/she to worry about when the decision is being made.

What about usurpers, former political rivals, military coups, assassins, and the US army? Those would be top concerns for me if I were a dictator.

As to the questions you posed: totalitarianism is better for ruling a country, because it's a political system and not an economic system; most people would rather be ruled by a political system than by an economic system, so communism is out; and, as communism, after the first few years, is notoriously inefficient, totalitarianism is "better in the quickness of getting things done," or, in smart-people terms, more efficient. Landslide victory for totalitarianism, but I'm still glad I don't live in a totalitarian region. CAPITALI-FUCKING-SATION!