Of the major 20th century totalitarian regimes (Russia, China, Germany, Japan, Italy and Spain) only China remains resolutely totalitarian, though after the death of Mao it's morphed from Marxism to fascism. Of the lesser totalitarian regimes, only Cuba, N. Korea and several Islamist dictatorships remain now that Pinochet and Sadam Hussein are dead.

So far, although we're morphing into an authoritarian police state, the  USA has resisted totalitarianism. George W. Bush  (who seized power in the bloodless coup of 2000, assumed some dicatorial powers and admits he's tempted to go further)  hasn't attempted another coup. Expect Hillary to maintain the trend towards fascism, albeit at a slower rate than that of Republican regimes.

I don't think anyone that is of a sound mind would want to live under this kind of rule.

It's easy for us to opine from the outside, we've never experienced it first hand, ask the people of N. Korea how they like it so far. If you ask Fit we’re almost there, according to him, we’re currently going through a Totalitarianism cycle of sorts.

Chavez has moved Venezuela that way but has failed to do it and Russia is still moving back. Obviously not a good form of government. We have avoided this here thanks to the fact that we still cling slightly to the idea that we can better govern ourselves than a small percentage of the people in a certain position. As government involvement grows, we lose bits of this. In the United States we still have an election system that works and selects it's president according to a Constitutionally protected process. When that president wins according to the Constitution, and should it be a new president taking office, there is a peaceful change of power. This happens with every American election. The year 2000 springs to mind. Again.

Real totalitarianism is become increasing rare. Cuba, North Korea and perhaps some fly-blown Third World state somewhere are the greatest examples. The speed and ubiquity of means of communication dooms this political method. Real totalitarianism really was rare in the the old days. The countries behind the Iron Curtain and Nazi Germany were the outstanding examples. Such places as Fascist Italy and Spain as well as the Banana Republics were authoritarian, and there is a large difference between that method and totalitarianism.

It's freaky some people like totalitarianism.

Real totalitariansm is extremely rare (as opposed to authoritariansim, which it is often confused with). Totalitarian regimes aspire to *the absolute control of the individual by the state*, as depicted in Orwell's 1984. Only a handful of Fascist and Communist regimes ever qualified as totalitarian. Most dictatorships only object to organized opposition (political parties, unions, media) and don't care much what their subjects think or say-modern China is a good example. The only government in existance today that would qualify as Totalitarian is North Korea. The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Mao's China were all totalitarian states, as were the lesser Nazi/Communist puppet regimes. The rise of totalitarianism in the 1930s, and its decline since the 1980s appears to have something to do with changes in technology, especially new technologies involving control over information (video/audio tapes, satellite/cable TV, copy machines, the Internet, mobile phones...). Ironically, democracy has been weakened by these same changes as well; the main ideological winner so far has been not democracy but rather oligarchy-symbolized by the rise of billionaires and media barons in the 80s and 90s.

tries to eliminate choice, one of the greatest human rights. people have a right to choose what they do with there life and how they feel about things.

Thankfully, being eliminated as history goes on. Hitler didn't last. Pol Pot didn't last. Stalin didn't last. Hussein didn't last. And, soon Castro will be gone. I find it amusing and ironic that totalitarianism is associated with extreme right-wing thoughts, because if you think about it, extreme left-wingers want the government to control everything (health care, profits, what business can do, where people can do what, etc.) and a huge government is essential for the totalianism concept.

It's only possible use would be in times of complete chaos, where one strong voice would be the only thing that the people would follow. Tough choice: chaos with freedom, or order without?

Being told what to wear, eat, when to blink, breate isn't cool.

I suppose my rating really depends on if I'm the dictator or not..

This isn't one particular ideology - it is the result of Fascism, Communism, democracy or any other system gone wrong. This is where one person - serving their own interests controls a country. Totalitarianism is, by definition, bad.

Need I point out, that totalitarianism isn't actually a political ideology. It's simply a method of application. I find the comparisons with Communism the most stupid- a most American quality you'd agree. For example, there is an elected Communist Party in Moldova. Is it totalitarian? No. What did the statements of the CPRF say during the past 10 years? That they will rule within the existing framework. Thus are totalitarianism and Communism one? No. You people listen too much to relics of Cold-War propaganda.

Firstly, Anmalone, yes, this is very different to Socialism, Communism and Marxism. Very different forms of government in theory. Now to the point. No government or people should be given the right to total control over people's lives as brutal totalitarians want. It is just not right, and this ideology isn't right at all.

Oh yeah this is really differant from Socialism, National Socialism, Marxism and Communism.

bad bad bad

Brutal dictators. Stalin's totalitarianism was supposedly in the name of Marx's Communism, but it was just his successful attempt to get into power and seize everything, tell everyone what they could and couldn't do, and finally killed over 15 MILLION people.

As Americans, we are taught to fear totalitarianism. The checks and balances built into our governing system are a source of pride for us, and rule of law is almost universally accepted as preferable to rule of man. I never knew a different perspective until I spent some time living in Venezuela. I remember walking through the streets of Caracas with a friend of mine, and being shown that virtually every significant building, bridge, and structure had been constructed in the late 70's during the regime of the last Venezuelan strong man. Corruption, a balooning government, and falling oil prices had wreaked such havoc on Venezuela's democracy that the State simply hadn't accomplished anything for two decades. The message that I took from this conversation is that there can be no more efficient, effective government than a totalitarian one - as long as the person with all of the power is visionary, trustworthy, and charismatic. Just as a small business with decision-making ability concentrated among a small number of people is often able to run circles around a large, bureaucratic organization, so is a totalitarian government able to outmaneuver an unwieldy democracy. However, the obvious flipside to this argument is that a totalitarian regime also has the potential to be a disaster, should the wrong person come to power. My oversimplified take on all of this is that democracy is preferable to totalitarianism not because it more effective or efficient, but because it is SAFER. People can be corrupted, the wrong guy can finagle his way into power - because of this, it is just too dangerous to give all of the power to one person.