Totalitarian and Autotarian

[Kjertesvein]

In a history lesson I remember for some time age, the teacher spoke of the Nazi regime as being both authoritarian, but also totalitarian.

The class accepted this, so when I asked what the difference is between the two - he couldn't give a straight answer. A lot of "ehh", and "uhhm's". Thus I direct me attention elsewhere for answers - What's the difference?

If you want an extra challenge: Can you be one, but not the other - or the other, but not the one.

~Wille

[clone]

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.[1] Totalitarian regimes stay in political power through an all-encompassing propaganda campaign, which is disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by political repression, personality cultism, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

[Col. Tartleton]

I think Authoritarian describes rule by an Authority. While Totalitarian describes the total control of the government.

[Vizvii]

It's a matter of nuance. A totalitarian society is completely under the rule of a certain group or individual. An authoritarian rule simply has too much power in comparison to a democratic one.

You could say Russia today is authoritarian, while 30 years ago it was totalitarian.

[Demetrius of Serbia]

It's a matter of nuance. A totalitarian society is completely under the rule of a certain group or individual. An authoritarian rule simply has too much power in comparison to a democratic one.

You could say Russia today is authoritarian, while 30 years ago it was totalitarian.

You could also say it's awesome!

[Col. Tartleton]

You could also say it's awesome!

Awesome as in terrifying or awesome as in good?



You made me think how English is as nuanced as Chinese sometimes... Their words are different based on intonation. Ours are based on complex context...

I feel terrible for people learning English as a second language, but it's a great and useful language, so it's worth it.

[Vizvii]

You made me think how English is as nuanced as Chinese sometimes... Their words are different based on intonation. Ours are based on complex context...

I feel terrible for people learning English as a second language, but it's a great and useful language, so it's worth it.

I was under the impression that that's true for pretty much every language.

[Dr. Croccer]

Authoritarianism means that the state has considerable power (at the expense of individual citizens), totalitarianism means that the state has supreme power.

[Claudius Gothicus]

From a Poli. Science point of view Totalitarianism has a form of intervening the Civil Sphere that not only regulates and modifies every aspect of social relationships but also has a tendency toward mobilizing large masses of the population under the asymetric control of the political system.

Authoritarianism simply takes over State Aparatuses and makes some efforts to deactivate the public sphere and the opposition, on a varying degree.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

From a Poli. Science point of view Totalitarianism has a form of intervening the Civil Sphere that not only regulates and modifies every aspect of social relationships but also has a tendency toward mobilizing large masses of the population under the asymetric control of the political system.

Authoritarianism simply takes over State Aparatuses and makes some efforts to deactivate the public sphere and the opposition, on a varying degree.

this. Authoritarianism simply means the state has a lot of power and little accountability. Totalitarianism means it uses that power to control totally people's lives, as Nazi Germany did with its Gcoordination programs.

[Kjertesvein]

So if I understand this correctly (in oversimplified terms, of course) Authoritarianism is state control, but with limitations of some kind. Totalitarianism is an extention of Authoritarianism. It goes further. In other words, total authority. Mussolini vs. Stalin.

A technicality-question. So can a state be both A. and T.? I just hear this all the time from the media about certain states. My teacher. But to do so sound rather redundant in my ears.

~Wille

[Col. Tartleton]

I wouldn't say Authoritarian states have limits, rather the opposite, they are unlimited. It is more they just haven't explicitly used that authority to try to regulate everything.

If you give someone absolute power you've created an authoritarian state where an author can authorize any and all actions. When any and all actions have effectively been taken the state is totalitarian.

A dictator is by nature authoritarian. He could limit himself and not be totalitarian, but he could not be dictator and non authoritarian. Dictatorship is synonymous with the kind of authority I'm talking about. You could have a benign dictatorship, which would be authoritarian, but not totalitarian.

The Authoritarian can write any law he wants to. The Totalitarian already has.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Yes, Tarleton puts it well. Authoritarians have lots of power and little acountability, dictators basically. Totalitarians are people who use the state's power to interfere in the daily lives of the citizens. Totalitarians are not necessarily authoritarians, but they can be. Basically, if I am dictator of Ireland and I have absolute power at my personal command, I am authoritarian. But I am not totalitarian until I use that power in a specific way, to influence people's everyday lives to the way I'd prefer them.

It's possible for non-authoritarian states, even (pseudo-)democracies, to be totalitarian. For example the Britain of Children of Men is a democracy but also a far-right totalitarian state.

[Sphere]

Singapore might be an example (though not a great one) of a rather totalitarian state that is not authoritarian. The government is run on the rule of law and elected officials, there is no person or group with the authority to decree or do whatever they want. But they do have very strict and extensive laws such as the infamous ban on chewing gum, which are invasive to everyday life.

You could talk about Switzerland in the same way, e.g. you are not allowed to drive a car too loudly (as Jeremy Clarkson found out). Granted in both cases it is a fairly mild form of totalitarianism, nothing to compare to Stalinist Russia, but my only point is to show by example that you can have totalitarianism without authoritarianism.

If you wanted to find the opposite example, authoritarian states without totalitarianism, you could look to the monarchies in the Persian Gulf. The leaders have more-or-less absolute authority, but socially, economically and even sometimes in the legal system, the state is almost non-involved. Bhutan might also be an example.

[Claudius Gothicus]

A State can be both authoritarian and totalitarian(XX Century Totalitarians were of the Authoritarian kind of course) but we can find examples of extreme State intervention were arbitrary(without responding to legally binding forms) or ''non-competitive''(the inexistence of political parties and fair elections) descisions are not the norm.

If we understand these forms of State presence as totalitarian or mildly totalizing, we can actually state that many authoritarian governments actually give more autonomy, in everyday socializing to the individual, than what we would find in developed liberal democracies. However the presence of these ''autonomies'' can also turn against freedom itself, since the inexistence of clear regulations can mean arbitrary and coercive acts against the subject(from corrupt bureaucrats, predatory companies, violent teachers or even to rising the level of general criminality).

So, they can co-exist or not.

[Sphere]

I was under the impression that that's true for pretty much every language.

English is a bit unique because of how often it adopted both the Latin-based and Germanic-based words for the same thing and overtime assigned a nuanced difference between the two. E.g.

Mansion vs. House.

Mansion in Latin just means more or less a house, the French still use it in this way in the word "Maison".

House comes from the Germanic "Haus", and really means the same thing as a mansion, but in modern English mansion means a large expensive house while house kept its more generic meaning.

Then you could describe it as a "big" ( probably Scandinavian origin) house or a "grand" (from the Latin grandis) house. Again, the words originally had the same meaning, but overtime "grand" gained extra connotations over time in English (in the more pure romance languages "grand" has stayed much closer to original latin usage).

[Vizvii]

English is a bit unique because of how often it adopted both the Latin-based and Germanic-based words for the same thing and overtime assigned a nuanced difference between the two. E.g.

Mansion vs. House.

Mansion in Latin just means more or less a house, the French still use it in this way in the word "Maison".

House comes from the Germanic "Haus", and really means the same thing as a mansion, but in modern English mansion means a large expensive house while house kept its more generic meaning.

Then you could describe it as a "big" ( probably Scandinavian origin) house or a "grand" (from the Latin grandis) house. Again, the words originally had the same meaning, but overtime "grand" gained extra connotations over time in English (in the more pure romance languages "grand" has stayed much closer to original latin usage).

My native language is also an eclectic mix of various Indo-European languages, where words of different etymologies hold different connotations. English is not that special in this regard.

[Kjertesvein]

Thanks guys. TWC isn't just a gaming site, it's place to form opinions into informed opinions.

~Wille