Society & Politics

The case for totalitarianism

The case for totalitarianism

Totalitarian countries tend to be motivated by opposition to personal property, or a desire to commit genocide. Authoritarian regimes tend to be corrupt. But is it possible to have a totalitarian society that is functional?

I believe it is.

While I don't agree with Singapore's policies (particularly gender and sex politics), it is a very strict and heavily surveilled society. But there's no dictatorship or oligarchy, it's a rare example of a totalitarian democratic republic.

When I was in high school, an Iranian exchange student told me he and his family visited Dubai at some point, and his mother forgot she left her wallet on the dining room table. WITH THE FRONT DOOR OPEN.

When the family came back, nothing was stolen. Everything was there.

The Iranian told me the punishment for theft is having the thieves' hands lobbed off. I asked how the authorities are able to know who did it with absolute certainty, to which he pointed out they had ubiquitous surveillance.

Surveillance is inherently a good thing, provided the watchmen are trustworthy. Thus, we need watchmen to watch the watchmen. Though to an extent, we do have this in the United States to some degree. Our law enforcement officers have body cameras to keep them in check, prisons have cameras as a measure to keep inmates and guards in check, and in public there are cameras to keep some level of surveillance over what's going on in public.

That coupled with my experiences over the past 10 years, have led me to take the 1984 pill.

How I would structure a society

It would be a one-party state to ensure only one ideology is approved for the whole country. That ideology would enforce egalitarianism on the basis of race, ethnicity, sex, and sexual orientation. Not only would discrimination would be illegal, but there will be no tolerance towards the existence of people who behaves, speaks, or even thinks out of line with these goals.

To find these people, we would not only need universal surveillance and listening devices, but collective punishment on the people who they watch and anyone in the area if these devices get damaged. This way, you can't have things like Jeffrey Epstein "committing suicide" where they security cameras watching him were suspiciously destroyed. If the means to keep an eye on people are destroyed, everyone gets punished in order to motivate them to hunt down the guilty. Think along the lines of the move Full Metal Jacket where Gunnery Sergeant Hartman adopts a collective punishment measure to motivate the marine corps to haze Private Leonard Lawrence to become a model marine instead of washing out. He resorted to this after his attempts to simply discipline him failed.

There will be no tolerance for other political parties, and the one party will have an ideology that rules the country, the country's leadership, and the culture. Everyone will keep an eye on everyone to make sure they all subscribe to the central tenets of the culture of egalitarianism, justice, and self-sacrifice for the community.

But even with that, I want them to have personal property. I've read that while Nazi Germany banned Jews from own any type of weapon, they relaxed restrictions for party members and hunters. I would advocate the society I'm proposing to do have lax firearm restrictions for trusted party members, but without discrimination against Jews or against anyone on the basis of their immutable characteristics.

P.S. Is this different from communism?

The case for totalitarianism
The case for totalitarianism
Post Opinion