Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (116966)	5/29/2005 12:15:02 PM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793858

Hi John, Yes, I am still in Idaho. About 5 miles N of downtown Coeur d'Alene. Beautiful place.

To: JohnM who wrote (116966)	6/1/2005 12:01:29 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 793858

There is also, in this literature, a distinction between "authoritarian" and "totalitarian." I've forgotten the exact terms of that distinction but kholt's rendering of it as something like "totalitarian is authoritarian with an attitude," fits. Think of authoritarian as being the opposite of democracy and totalitarian as being the opposite of freedom. An authoritarian system is one where most people get no say (not just no vote, but no other formal way of influencing the government and often very little informal way of exerting an influence). The dictator is in charge and what he says goes. But in theory he could just grab some wealth for him and his cronies, put up a few monuments to his greatness, shoot those who openly oppose him, but otherwise leave everyone alone most of the time. A totalitarian system is one where there is some attempt to control everything, or at least vast parts of your life. Everything is owned by or otherwise totally controlled by the state or some party or organization. Your life is controlled at every level great an small by the government or party. In practice totalitarian governments are also authoritarian, but if you have a majority of stalinists or fundamentalist religious fanatics it would be possible in theory to have a democratic totalitarian government (where people vote in rules and laws and controls over just about everything). In general I think right wing dictatorships have been less totalitarian. They can be just as nasty, but there motivation is power, and maybe greed. If your own the dictator's shit list, than you are in trouble, but if you aren't in some hated group, and you don't oppose the government in any way, your life might be your own more than in a totalitarian government. Totalitarian governments and dictators and parties may care a great deal about power and even wealth but they tend to be more ideologically driven. They want to make society "perfect", or at least "better". They have more energy and motivation to force everything in to a particular mode. Many of these governments have been communist. The Kymer Rouge are a particularly good example of totalitarianism. The PRC was totalitarian at certain times (but now is more just authoritarian), Stalin's government was totalitarian. North Korea's current government is a great example. A non communist, non-leftist example might be the Taliban. For severe authoritarian systems that aren't totalitarian you could look at the Mongol Khan's, or actually any number of ancient governments or you could look at a lot of right wing dictatorships in Latin America's history. The line can be fuzzy. If the dictator has total power than he can start implmenting his whims and the government can become more totalitarian even if it isn't driven by some rigid ideology. Tim