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?
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
3Opinion
This is utterly ridiculous. "Surveillance is inherently a good thing, provided the watchmen are trustworthy."
Even if they could be trusted (and they cannot, ever), I still wouldn't support this, because privacy, like personal space and freedom of expression, are essential to a person's well-being.
I don't care about egalitarianism, because people are NOT all the same; they're different, individual, and therefore have different needs and desires. Freedom wins every time, even if totalitarian societies are "safer" and "more orderly". I would rather be free than safe.
Freedom of expression isn't good when the expression is dissent against a good government. And no, privacy isn't necessary. If you're trying to hide something from the government, then that means you are up to something nefarious and need to disappear.
Egalitarianism should be enforced with no tolerance for the mere thought that races and sexes have any hint of difference to them. We need to start sending everyone who might think that way to gulags or prison so everyone who doesn't lose that game of musical chairs agrees. And no, freedom doesn't win at all because freedom is overrated if it contradicts Big Brother.
The Soviet Union was flawless until Stalin took over.
"... a good government"
Um, I hate to break it to ya, but there is no such thing as a "good" government; only bad ones.
"If you're trying to hide something..."
Oh boy. No, it doesn't mean that I'm "up to something nefarious"; it just means I value my privacy, and don't want everyone to know what I get up to, because IT'S NONE OF THEIR DAMNED BUSINESS!
"Egalitarianism should be enforced with no tolerance for the mere thought that races and sexes have any hint of difference to them."
This is just a troll post, isn't it? I mean, you'd have to be completely retarded to actually believe what you just wrote here. ALL the evidence in the world tells us that people vary significantly, that we are not all the same, and that these differences matter. Egalitarianism always has been, and always shall be, complete nonsense.
Wrong. There's no such thing as good anarchy, because any anarchy and lack of hierarchy is bad. And valuing your privacy is just a euphemism for the undeniable fact that you're hiding something. Everything is the government's business, even what dust molecules are passing through landfills.
There is no justified reason to not be egalitarian. Everyone will be the same once all the people who are your idea of different are gone.
Look, if you love rotten authoritarian governments so much, then move to North Korea. You'd fit in well there.
"And valuing your privacy is just a euphemism for the undeniable fact that you're hiding something. Everything is the government's business, even what dust molecules are passing through landfills."
I see you have mental problems. I recommend you consult a psychiatrist. Yes, I prefer to be left alone, to have things that are only mine, like my personal space, my own car, bedroom, clothes and so on. I'm not sharing anything with anyone, because I'm NOT like everyone else, and I'm a hell of a lot BETTER than most!
You can live a life of slavery if that's what you want, but that's not for me, nor for any other rational, clear-thinking individual who values personal freedom.
So. When are you expecting that flight to Pyongyang?
You DO realize not every authoritarian government is the same, right? Or that they all get along? Do you think the Nazis and Stalinists in the Weimar Republic held hands and sang Kumbaya because they were both totalitarian? Or that every democratic or republican government got along because their governing philosophies were similar?
The Kingdom of France was an absolute monarchy, yet they supported the American rebels in what is now the USA revolt against the British Empire. Britain was and is a constitutional monarchy where a crypto-fascist Parliament was the source of most of the colonist's pet peeves. Even if Jacques Necker was the brains behind the King Louis XVI rubber-stamping France's involvement, the Kingdom of France couldn't wait to take revenge on Britain for all the shit they put them through their long history. During the French Revolutionary Wars, the US fought against the French revolutionaries during the Quasi War while the revolutionaries fought the French royalist remnants. The notion that every authoritarian government is going to be the exact same or that they are all preferable just because one is isn't an argument that holds up.
Besides, Trump's ban on travel to North Korea hasn't been lifted. My government isn't really interested in allowing it's people to be held hostage by a government that is hostile to ours, and I don't think those countries are interested in people coming in to potentially spread the COVID-19 virus. I've been fully vaccinated and got the booster, but I will be courteous and quarantine. And if I can choose what authoritarian country I can go to, why not Vietnam, Cuba, or South Yemen when the pandemic is over and the dust settles? They are much more preferable to North Korea, which can't even feed it's own people. And that's all assuming you CAN move to these countries, as in my experience they don't seem interested in letting people in unless they have money.
Yes, I know that they're not all the same, but I do know they're all bloody awful, and I would rather live in a country where I could freely express who I actually was, rather than having to hide and constantly censor myself because others may not like what I have to say and report me to the secret police.
If North Korea isn't to your liking, then try Victoria, Australia. They have someone ruling the place called 'Dictator Dan', and his title is well deserved.
I want my dictator to not be a "progressive". While I don't like Singapore, do you consider that to be a dictatorship? It's a democratic republic, but is totalitarian at the same time.
Surveillance is top quality, the state should always be trusted without question, they always have our best interests. What happened to the cameras when Epstein died by the way I thought he was on surveillance?
That's why we need watchmen to watch the watchmen. And don't forget watchmen to watch the watchmen watching the watchmen.
I get it
You pretty much defined China.
Share the first opinion in your gender
and earn 1 more Xper point!