You must log in or # to comment.
The people in charge want to have complete control over everything, for their own benefit. They don’t want to have to see anything they don’t like. They don’t want to have to interact with people they don’t like. They want all of their citizens to have to do their bidding, either directly or indirectly, in order to survive. They don’t want any outside “interference” or inside opposition. They want to wield this power for their entire lives, and handpick the person who replaces them at their death. Basically, look at North Korea.
The actual endgame of a totalitarian country is inevitably collapse, though; every totalitarian regime has either fallen or is in the process of falling. Corruption and massive wealth inequalities always result in revolution. Repressive legal codes always produce martyrs to rally behind. Social oppression and persecution often end up with outside countries invading to depose the fascists; and if they don’t, the purity tests get more and more specific until everyone is “out,” leading to large enough blocs to challenge the leadership. The only way that any totalitarian leadership has ever avoided the deadly consequences of their fascism is by voluntarily (or, uh…“voluntarily”) giving up some power in exchange for their lives.
Historically, the only truly stable countries are ones that allow their people a significant amount of financial, social, and legal freedom and security.
What’s the end goal of a virus?
sneez
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.” ― George Orwell, 1984
Everybody thinks they’ll be the boot, but spoiler, they’re a face.
people think they will be the boot?
Oh yeah. The hierarchical thinking inherent to the Conservative mindset is one of authoritarianism. They want to know their place in the hierarchical structure, which they wholeheartedly believe places them above someone else. Even though they have a boot on their face, at least they have their boot on someone else’s face too.
They truly believe there must be a hierarchy. They can’t seem to envision a world without boots on faces or that maybe we should work for a place without boots on faces.
I guess it depends on the ones in power. There is a theoretical possibility that the ones in power acts altruistically for the good of the people.
History however has proven totalitarian countries as brutal regimes, before it inevitablably collapses.
One of the reasons it can’t be for the good of the people is that it needs to pay supporters a lot more.
If you are a dictator, you have to constantly bribe your supporters (military, oligarchs etc). If you don’t, they will replace you with another dictator that will. So the system will inherently be corrupt and not to the benefit of the people.
Any actions that benefit the people comes from a fear of riots and revolution. In other words it’s a delicate balancing act.
Things might be different now and in the future due to more advanced surveillance, personalized propaganda, drones and robotics. Different in that it can be more oppressive than previously.
Power for the people in charge, and a combination of enforced stratification of society (with those who support the regime on top of course) and reduced status for, the removal of, or outright sanctioned violence against the people upon whom all of society’s ills are blamed.
I think it starts as a means for making money and getting power and continues because those involved know that if they give up power they’re in deep trouble.
What is the end of goal of a non-totalitarian country?
The most good for the most people, with enough leeway that those who feel unsatisfied can find a constructive outlet and/or isolate themselves. Look at Star Trek TOS for a good representation of what a post scarcity world might look like.
Ah so then the end goal of a totalitarian country would be the most good for a small group of insiders. I think this makes sense from a game theory perspective – the reason people would support the defector (in the prisoner’s dilemma) is because they think he has the capacity to succeed and they believe he’ll bring his supporters along with him into the group of beneficiaries of inequality. I think in most of human history it might have worked. So there’s some dysfunctional thing going on where the people support the party who is exploiting them in exchange for a hoped-for advantage over the other members of the exploited class. (Like the kapos in the Nazi concentration camps)
Edit: I think in Primo Levi’s book Survival in Auschwitz he says something about how the Nazi concentration camp reflected the wider social reality that is the concentration camp of the world. I couldn’t find the exact quote yet but it looks like his essay “The Grey Zone” in his book The Drowned and the Saved makes a similar argument (I found some good quotes here).
So you’re saying we don’t have any non-totalitarian countries?
Feeding the ego of those on top by ANY means necessary.
Soothing the egos of some very insecure, very rich people.
total control of the populace
north korea: empower a few, enslave the rest, never be challenged for generations
World domination?
I mean we have north korea and russia. Once you can’t suck any more out of the country you expand it if you can to suck out of more. If you take over the world im not sure where you go from there. Guess you hire musk at that point.
Monarchies
