(Posted to GD rather than GQ because “totalitarian” is a fuzzy concept.)
Obviously, authoritarianism has been the norm through most of human history, over most of the globe. People have had kings/emperors/etc through most of human history.
But true totalitarianism is a bit of a different animal. States that exert comprehensive control over most aspects of their subjects’ lives - North Korea, the USSR, Nazi Germany - seem to be a relatively modern innovation. They rely on modern infrastructure - roads, communications, prisons and so on.
Or am I mistaken? Did totalitarian states exist in antiquity? If so, where?
To my mind, 'totalitarian" implies modernity, and an attempt to gain total control over all aspects of a citizen’s existance that was simply beyond the means and ambitions of premodern states; I’d say the first regime to make the attempt was the Revolutionary French gov’t.
I’d consider the Spartan system an an extreme form of aristocracy, rather than totalitarian. Certainly the Spartans attempted to control their helots (some 90% of the population) through state terrorism & ‘culling’, and trained themselves to be the ultimate military force in the ancient world. This does not I think make them ‘totalitarian’ any more than any slave-owning military aristocracy is ‘totalitarian’. What is missing, I think, is the sort of ideological component that convinces the mass of ‘helots’ to effectively enslave themselves, which is what gives totalitarianism its unique horror.
How large a group do you need? I’m sure some caveman tribes were run under what we would recognize as totalitarian lines, with the dominant few dictating everything from living conditions to hunting patterns to who’s allowed to mate with who. Technology may have increased the ability to control large numbers of people but the desire for total power isn’t a modern invention.
To my mind, to be meaningful “totalitarianism” has got to be something different from a mere despotism. The difference is, I would say, that the totalitarian state requires ideological conformity and an identity of the individual with the state that transcends any other sort of bond - in the ideal totalitarian state, children would happily inform on parents, because that is the right thing to do and they truly love the great leader (as embodyment of the state) more than their families or themselves.
Plenty of despots throughout history have achieved great power over others through naked fear, but few have even dreamed of achieving that sort of control.
I realize you disagreed earlier, but to me Sparta is the poster child for an early totalitarian state. In fact, I think they did totalitarianism better than anyone before or since, taking it to extremes that probably weren’t possible for a state larger than the Spartan city state.
So, my vote goes to Sparta…kicking messengers into the pit of doom and beating the crap out of their own children until around 220 BC…
Plenty of states have the parents culling or abusing the kids in the name of the state - the Romans exposed the “weak” infants, their rivals the Cartheginians sacrificing the first-born to Moloch, etc.
What is unique about the totalitarian state is the notion that everyone has a duty to “cull” the inappropriate - even their parents - in the name of some sort of ideology.
Certainly the Spartans had some totalitarian licks going for 'em, like deliberately breaking up their families by eating in ‘messes’, seperating kids from parents, etc.
But they seemingly lacked an overall ideological component. Their innovations were intended to be purely practical - to create the best warriors, to hold down an unhappy slave class. Contrast with communism.
So, while they (like many) states had some components of totalitarianism, they weren’t already there yet.
Granted, I have a very History Channel-esque view of Sparta, but my understanding is that this was exactly what the Spartans did. They regimented thought to such an extent that every house was furnished the same way, and when the army went on campaign outside of the lands of Sparta the soldiers weren’t even allowed to speak to other Greeks, even in allied armies (less they pick up dirty furriner idea thingies). The entire life of a Spartan was about regimentation in the name of the state.
Certainly. But I can’t think of anyone who took it to the extremes that the Spartans did.
I think that their ideology revolved around the state and ancestor worship and a personal sense of individual glory (that was tied back into the state). Again, my take is perhaps based on a flawed understanding of history, but from what I do know there was a huge ideological component. Perhaps not in the modern sense of the word, but certainly in the sense that it characterized their thinking as a group or nation.
Granted, MMV. They are simply my perhaps uninformed choice.
The Incan empire (1438 - 1532) is sometimes characterized as totalitarian. They had limited private ownership with all land owned by the Inca. A central statistics department monitored demographics and controlled migration, ordering resettlement of conquered tribes as necessary. Social protest was regarded as sacrilege. Priests took care of propaganda, etc.
IMHO you are just trying to fit the very varied reality into a caricature that wouldn’t accurately fit even the classical examples like Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany.
And what does it mean to “cull”? If a Spartan were to openly express dissident ideas, it would be reported to his superiors (whom he couldn’t meaningfully choose, e.g. by finding a job in another company in modern terms) and he would be punished. Which is quite different from contemporary Athens which generally allowed free speech and had no hierarchy in control of everybody. It is also more or less different from modern West where the standards on free speech depend heavily on where you are, what you are, and what you are talking about. What minimum standard of totalitarianism do you prefer? 20 years in Siberia for first offense?
Incidentally, Sparta can be understood first and foremost as a military unit or a Communist state, whichever term we may like more in this case. A soldier cannot of his own accord quit one unit and go serve in another. He is bound to the unit and to his superiors, getting his salary from them, obeying their commands and keeping his mouth shut according to the uniform military code of something or other. Pretty totalitarian, except a Spartan soldier could not get the equivalent of discharge until old age.
The Catholic church. They demanded a tenth of your income, and took up most of your free time with telling you what to think and how to talk and how to behave. They interfered in you personal life, your birth, education, work, sex-life, family life, right up untill your death.
The short-lived Qin Dynasty in China might be a candidate. It seems to have gone beyond your ordinary authoritarian despotism, particularly in it’s embrace of Legalism.
In the Inca Empire, state officials collected and distributed all the people’s produce, and even visited every village periodically and arranged marriages for anyone who was of age and still unmarried. And minority ethnic groups concentrated in localities were sometimes broken up and resettled all over the empire, Assyrian-style, to encourage cultural assimilation. Also there was a state religion, but that was the norm for premodern empires of any kind.
The government of tsarist Russia, though autocratic in theory and in practice, was rarely sufficiently competent to be totalitarian; but Ivan the Terrible did attempt to create a totalitarian state-within-the-state, the Oprichnina.
Naturally, I don’t agree. Ideology and its use in sublimating the individual into the collective is the very essence of a truly “totalitarian” regime. Otherwise, there is nothing to differentiate it from any other sort of authoritarian system and the usefulness of the term becomes diluted - every military despotism, sufficiently nasty, becomes 'totalitarian".
I don’t agree. The “Spartiates” had a reasonably complex oligarchy, nothing near so simple as ‘do as you are told or you will be punished’.
Sparta is more accurately described as a “democratic aristocracy”. They (the aristocrats) most certainly could “meaningfully choose” their leaders.
Read about the famous Spartian constitution:
Heh? This is not an accurate representation of Athens. Athens most assuredly had a hierarchy, same as Sparta - citizens on top, then metics, then slaves, all bound in a complex governmkental system. As for “free speech” - that could get you in serious trouble in Athens: just ask Socrates!
Again, Huh?
As noted, Socrates was killed for exercising ‘free speech’. That doesn’t make Athens “totalitarian”.
What are you talking about? Spartians by an large looked on being a Spartiate as an honour - they were the ruling aristocracy.
Here’s one defining characteristic: In most modern societies there is such thing as civil society, “the totality of voluntary civic and social organizations and institutions that form the basis of a functioning society as opposed to the force-backed structures of a state (regardless of that state’s political system) and commercial institutions of the market.”
In a totalitarian system, all elements of civil society typically are marginalized, or taken over by the state/ruling party, or suppressed entirely. See, e.g., the Nazi policy of Gleichschaltung or “coordination.”
The Qin State in China is generally credited as being the first Chinese totalitarian regime. Here is Wiki’s overview of the Qin (I haven’t read it though): Qin dynasty - Wikipedia
They are simply my perhaps uninformed choice.
