Totalitarion Goverment, Could It Work?

GhostHunter · February 23, 2003

Well, we've seen what success it has had in the past (Germany, Russia etc, Japan etc..) But, do you think if it was held together better it could work?

What made me think of this: The Atreides in the Dune books, the Duke ruled everything but intense training, and logic made all the Dukes logical rather then insane with power. Britain in its early ages was also a example, bu there have been, of course, many failures of it, but do you think for a example, if say, Collen Powell was to become the American dictator (Picked him because he is the Winston Churchill of today) America would still be the greatest super power?

P.S Edric - I used the American example just as a random one, if you say more then a few words against America get the hell out of this thread. I'm getting sick of it.

exatreide · February 23, 2003

A future Tolitarium Goverment could work. With barcodes, that sort of thing. Total Control must be used. Not losely.

even a big brother sort of thing. Thats the only way a tolitarium goverment could work.

and vilgent, thats not tolitarium. Atreides is a monarchy....

Dante · February 23, 2003

What a nice topic... Good idea. See 'The Contest' for my opinions. If you can be bothered :) .

VigilVirus · February 23, 2003

Ex, there is not much difference between a dictatorship and a monarchy. Well to unite them - let's just call it all authocracy.

And yes, I believe authocracies are more efficient as ways to develop a country that democracies, but not to please the citizens.

I would love to live in a authocracy if I was the elite in power ;D

Dante · February 23, 2003

And yes, I believe authocracies are more efficient as ways to develop a country that democracies, but not to please the citizens.
I would love to live in a authocracy if I was the elite in power ;D

Me too.

I thought it was spelt autocracy?

VigilVirus · February 23, 2003

Yeah, you're right. My mistake.

Mahdi · February 23, 2003

In theory, a benevolent despot is right up there with communism. In theory.

Vanguard3000 · February 23, 2003

I think Mahdi pretty much hit the nail on the head.

During the Enlightenment, one main belief was that an elnightened ruler (i.e. Frederick the Great of Prussia; Louis XIV of France), who is competant, logical, etc, should have absolute power, for he would be best suited for the job. The thing is that there exists no such person.

Edric O · February 23, 2003

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Under no circumstances could an autocracy possibly work. I wouldn't even trust MYSELF with absolute power.

Remember, Vilgent, Dune is only fiction.

SurlyPIG · February 23, 2003

Wow. I completely agree with Edric. :) ???

I'm scared. :(

GhostHunter · February 23, 2003

Yes I agree with the Dune part Edric, but what about the royal families of Britain before they lost their absolute power? If they did have this corrupt sense from their absolute power wouldn't the Empire have fallen?

Edric O · February 23, 2003

You have to understand that there is a huge difference between the prosperity of the state and that of the people. Monarchs can be good for the state, but they're ALWAYS bad for the people.

Look at Nazi Germany. Hitler was good for the state - he conquered nearly all of Europe. But at the same time, he was the worst evil to have ever fallen on the people of the world.

Vanguard3000 · February 23, 2003

Err... You mean like the British Civil War in the 1640's?

GhostHunter · February 23, 2003

You have to understand that there is a huge difference between the prosperity of the state and that of the people. Monarchs can be good for the state, but they're ALWAYS bad for the people.
Look at Nazi Germany. Hitler was good for the state - he conquered nearly all of Europe. But at the same time, he was the worst evil to have ever fallen on the people of the world.

True, but you must remember, as much as I hate to say it, people do not matter. Look at the Eygptian empire, and all the smaller Middle Eastern countries ways of running and taking care of their people today....As you can see unfortunaly, the people do not matter...

Edric O · February 23, 2003

Ridiculous. The role of the state is to care for the people. If the state doesn't do that, it is a failure. What good is an all-powerful empire if the people are suffering?

NOTHING takes precedence over the welfare and happiness of the people. NOTHING!

Andrew · February 24, 2003

Ridiculous. The role of the state is to care for the people. If the state doesn't do that, it is a failure. What good is an all-powerful empire if the people are suffering?
NOTHING takes precedence over the welfare and happiness of the people. NOTHING!

true about the rule but this could happen:

Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristocratic forms. No government in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, government tends more and more to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class -- whether that class be hereditary royalty, oligarchs of financial empires, or entrenched bureaucracy.

-Politics as Repeat Phenomenon: Bene Gesserit Training Manual

as stated in children of dune.

Also maybe a government like in GEoD? Even though it stagnated he controlled the population by several ways.

Edric O · February 24, 2003

True. Very VERY true! This is exactly what is happening to capitalism today. And that is why social systems must be periodically replaced. As the old system decays and an oligarchic ruling class emerges (in the case of capitalism, the great share holders of multinational corporations), it becomes necessary for the people to rise against the system and replace it with a better one. And after a few hundred years, the new system will also decay and a yet newer one must take its place... and so on. The alternative is tyranny.

Caid Ivik · February 24, 2003

Capitalism isn't unite system, which have to be installed like communism. People want it, because it isn't taking from them their property and lives. They just should work. And if they won't, economy is still enough strong to support them. In communism everyone, who isn't in party's High Soviet is poor. In capitalism if you are skilled, you can be rich even without political connection. Open your eyes and be true - the communism, its only practical form, the TRUE form, real form, altough of all that hypocricy, is an oligarchy.

Edric O · February 25, 2003

Listen, Caid, how many times do I have to tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about? You simply DON'T KNOW what communism is all about! You haven't even read anything by Marx or Engels!

What you're basically doing is putting words in my mouth, as if you know what I believe better than I do. I know you're not doing this on purpose, but you're doing it nonetheless. Please stop...

Anathema · February 25, 2003

Monarchs can be good for the state, but they're ALWAYS bad for the people.

We have a constitutional monarchy, and we're fine thank you :)

Edric O · February 26, 2003

That's because your king/queen doesn't have any actual power - the monarchy is just for show. ;)

Caid Ivik · February 27, 2003

Listen, Caid, how many times do I have to tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about? You simply DON'T KNOW what communism is all about! You haven't even read anything by Marx or Engels!
What you're basically doing is putting words in my mouth, as if you know what I believe better than I do. I know you're not doing this on purpose, but you're doing it nonetheless. Please stop...

You simply DON'T KNOW anything about me and reality of communism. Or better, you DON'T WANT TO KNOW. You cannot resist the truth - fifty million people (or 50 000 000, that's about two Romania populations now or a number of casualties of WW2) are KNOWN to be killed by communism. I didn't included China, where it wasn't counted, but expectations are even bigger. If I had enough info about persecution in Romania I would send it too, but I lack it.

Marx was a fanatic. As he written in Menschensholtz: "I will feel like a Creator, | when I bring strength to my words." That is a first sign of his violent mind. Or in Gebet: "I will raise my throne high, | cold and horrible will his highness be. | His might will be mythically feared, | his marshall darkest hopeless." I have some of his satanistic poesy too, but I don't want to lower your ideals. Also in Capital there were some fascinating things. For example I think 24.chapter (in my it is on 846.page), where he brings a little prophecy about "progressive shrink of number of capitalistic magnates", "DUE TO IT would raise number of poor people, enslavering, degeneration" etc., and also "rise of hate against regime of the proletariat", what is that mythical sacrifice for progress. He was a genius analysist, that's for sure!

And let I never see more you dare to say I haven't read it. You've lived for five years in communism, so you shouldn't know much about it too.

Andrew · February 27, 2003

What if you had a government like Leto II's where he was in charge and he was the religion. He supressed everyone but there was peace and I dont think anyone was living in poor conditions because everyone lived the same life on every planet. Could that be adapted on earth?

Caid Ivik · February 27, 2003

No, because in Duniverse there was only one ecumenic religion after Djihad stopped believe in machines. Also differentiation between throne and church must be. Not in all ways, but they cannot be same.

Anathema · February 27, 2003

Not in all ways,

Care to elaborate?

Sign In

Totalitarion Goverment, Could It Work?

Recommended Posts

GhostHunter

exatreide

Dante

VigilVirus

Dante

VigilVirus

Mahdi

Vanguard3000

Edric O

SurlyPIG

GhostHunter

Edric O

Vanguard3000

GhostHunter

Edric O

Andrew

Edric O

Caid Ivik

Edric O

Anathema

Edric O

Caid Ivik

Andrew

Caid Ivik

Anathema

Join the conversation

Activity

Important Information