Are Totalitarian Regimes Automatically Short-Lived?

[Omnis]

I'm thinking that most people under Centauri rule would rebel if they could, but are fundamentally unable. There is, for one thing, the very nature of a command economy; it's very hard to rebel against an authority with the ability to cut off your access to basic necessities of life such as food and water. In addition, the regime takes care to establish a privileged class among the subject population (remnants of the Earth-based regime who started the Unification Wars) that benefits from their rule and will do everything to maintain it.

The Centauri socio-political system is also entirely based upon genetic engineering, with the population divided into genetically-based castes. Members of different castes are allowed virtually no contact with each other, minimizing the chances of organized rebellion. The education system is also strictly controlled so that a person receives only the requisite knowledge to fulfill the function of their caste (a significant portion of the population is thereby illiterate). The little history that is taught at all has virtually no relation to reality; every effort is made to portray the Alignment regime as part of the natural order of the universe, something that has always existed in some form and always will. The average person under Alignment rule, while leading a harsh existence, has no idea that things have ever been any different. The only ones who are allowed any access to the truth are those involved in an on-going project to engineer a second leader to replace the one lost during the invasion.

I'm thinking that the very beginning of Centauri rule would be more violent than by far than what comes afterwards, given the massive number of purges and social engineering required to firmly establish their power. Over time, things would tend to stabilize as a new generation grows up with no memory of what came before the Alignment. The Alignment's secret police, however, would be constantly on the lookout for the slightest indication of a threat to the system, which is always dealt with swiftly, ruthlessly, and silently. Everyone living under Centauri rule is entered into a biometric identification system (remaining from Earth's previous government) that allows them to be tracked almost effortlessly.

One idea I'm toying with is to have the "Alignment Proper" be in control of Earth while the rest of the solar system is divided among Centauri warlords who broke away following the death of the original leader. Lip service would be paid to the ideal of a united regime in the same way that the princes of the Holy Roman Empire paid lip service to the ideal of imperial unity but diametrically opposed it in practice. The ongoing Earth-based project to engineer a second leader would thereby be spurred by the desire to re-establish the glories of the "Old Alignment".

[David Evil Overlord]

Originally Posted by Omnis

I'm thinking that most people under Centauri rule would rebel if they could, but are fundamentally unable. There is, for one thing, the very nature of a command economy; it's very hard to rebel against an authority with the ability to cut off your access to basic necessities of life such as food and water.

One of Larry Niven's books (Destiny's Road, IIRC) pointed out that there were what historian called "water empires" (again, IIRC), and that they either didn't fall or were very hard to topple. A water empire, as you may have guessed, has total control over that most basic necessity of life. Be a good little vassal, and you may have a drink. Rebel and go thirsty.

[Gumboot]

Originally Posted by Dave

I don't wish to argue semantics, but in the past, in the relationship between a peasant and a Lord, the Lord could control the supply of food, the supply of work and land to farm, the rule of Law, and because only he could read, the supply of News and ideas from outside, not to mention religious freedom. I think that does in fact fit your definition of Totalitarianism more closely than you argued.

I am presuming you're talking a medieval feudal relationship, in which case you're most likely wrong.

1) The peasants actually controlled the supply of food, not the other way around, because they worked the land and grew said food. If a Lord pissed his peasants off too much they'd move to another lord's territory and the lord would promptly starve.
2) Peasants had rights, and a Lord's control over them was limited, sometimes quite dramatically (for example peasants in medieval England worked less on average than people do today).
3) Most lords couldn't read, and in that regard were as much at the mercy of those who could (the church) as peasants were.
4) Lords had zero control over religious doctrine or freedom, and indeed the church had an enormous amount of power over them.

Feudal systems varied quite a bit from place to place and time to time, but very few of them would even really fit a description of authoritarian, let alone totalitarian. Rather they were a form of decentralised government where no one really exercised a great deal of power at all. If there was any example of a totalitarian regime in Medieval Europe it would be the Papal States, but in practise even that didn't really exercise total control over its populace.

[Vertigo]

I think Jamill's point is the most valid. If a totalitarian government is benign and looks after its subjects' needs then it can be stable and last a long time. If it is not and it oppresses its subjects then I think it will not last long. Even if a system like that has total control of vital resources - food, water, air etc. - it will inevitably be open to, and indeed invite, corruption creating a black market that potential rebels can exploit. As soon as that happens it creates a massive chink in the government's armour and it is probably only a matter of time before the uprising. And if that uprising fails, so long as they are still oppressed, uprisings will continue to happen until they succeed.

[Bowler1]

Even in the news today, the regimes that are falling are only doing to after lasting a long time. Why are they falling, lack of change and lack of flexbility regardless of the empowering and sharing of information Facebook has brought. The Romans were very flexible in there dealings with those inside and outside their empire which is one reason why they lasted do long. The second reason why they lasted so long was their willingness to defend their way of life, i.e, if you don't like it we kill you.

But bear in mind, for most romans, life just chugged along; slaves and freed. If the general population accept and can live with the control from above then they won't rebel. Life under the romans was generally considered to be better than life without the romans, which is why they lasted so long.

So if a large segment of the population accept the control from above, then change won't occur, or at least not without an outside force bringing on changes.

[Venusian Broon]

1) The peasants actually controlled the supply of food, not the other way around, because they worked the land and grew said food. If a Lord pissed his peasants off too much they'd move to another lord's territory and the lord would promptly starve.

From my incomplete reading of history, from the formation of the Feudal system till it started to break down after the black death - serfs/peasants were definitely not allowed to move, in fact there are many documented cases of Lords going after their 'people' to drag them back, punish them and put them back where they belonged. In these early times another Lord probably wouldn't have accepted them - unless they were highly skilled (unlikely as they were only serfs) as this would have set a bad example to their own serfs. The only other option to a person bonded to a Lord to escape at the time would be to go Outlaw - but then you could be killed on sight. It was the labour shortage of the black death that caused a buyer market for labour that helped to destroy this particular practice.

2) Peasants had rights, and a Lord's control over them was limited, sometimes quite dramatically (for example peasants in medieval England worked less on average than people do today).

True, but a happy serf is a productive serf as many Lords probably found and therefore good to have rules and privileges. But at the end of the day the serf owed service to his Liege, not the other way around.

3) Most lords couldn't read, and in that regard were as much at the mercy of those who could (the church) as peasants were.

A good point, but then again the nobility were free to move about, get news and hear new ideas and regarding reading - for example - if they needed to win a law case they could easily employ someone who could read the law/deeds whatever and win their case to their satisfaction. A peasant with a small strip of land, a cow and a few pennies just wouldn't be able to do that.

4) Lords had zero control over religious doctrine or freedom, and indeed the church had an enormous amount of power over them.

Everyone from King down was straight-jacketed into this one - but ultimately the church sided with the nobility - because they could get lots of nice things from them: Land, indulgences, concessions, secular power...
And powerful nobles do seem to have done anything they liked anyway.

Yes different countries had different systems, so I'm thinking mainly of Britain/England but you can generalise a bit to other nations.

[Toby Frost]

Medieval societies lacked the infrastructure and technology (and perhaps the will) to be genuinely totalitarian. The closest thing would be the medieval church, which could claim that God was permanently watching, but even then there probably wasn't the understanding of the objectives (power and cruelty for their own sakes) that comes from the 20th century, when the rulers completely acknowledged that they would never be judged if they were never caught. Even until quite late, empires were content to ignore a lot of their subjects provided that they didn't rebel, as per the Raj.

In terms of totalitarianism, 1984 is of course the expert's guide, combining as it does elements of Soviet Russia and fascist Germany and Japan. I'm also reminded somewhat of the game Half-life 2, which is set on Earth under off-world control. It has a strangely decrepit, depopulated feel, and some of the set-pieces feel very apt for the concept.

[Karkedon]

The totalitarian regimes you cite each faced problems resulting in their demise. For the Nazi's it was a war that they lost. For the Soviets it was the fact that they had to compete against the United States on military, economic and scientific fronts. If you set up a totalitarian regime that can control the military and communications of your nation and it doesn't have to compete against a free society of similar size you can maintain it. Here's an idea, the less intrusive your totalitarian government is to the daily lives of its people the less they have to complain about. Also, the old adage about a person with a full belly never has a reason to revolt has some weight.

[Galacticdefender]

Originally Posted by Omnis

is it in fact, plausible under any circumstances for a culture to exist in such a state of stagnation, mismanagement, and oppression for such a long amount of time without collapse,

Well, in the Warhammer 40,00 universe the Imperium of Man (which is a culture in a state of severe stagnation, mismanagement, oppression, and also extreme ignorance) has been going on for more than 30,000 years.

[Gumboot]

Originally Posted by Venusian Broon

From my incomplete reading of history, from the formation of the Feudal system till it started to break down after the black death - serfs/peasants were definitely not allowed to move, in fact there are many documented cases of Lords going after their 'people' to drag them back, punish them and put them back where they belonged. In these early times another Lord probably wouldn't have accepted them - unless they were highly skilled (unlikely as they were only serfs) as this would have set a bad example to their own serfs. The only other option to a person bonded to a Lord to escape at the time would be to go Outlaw - but then you could be killed on sight. It was the labour shortage of the black death that caused a buyer market for labour that helped to destroy this particular practice.



True, but a happy serf is a productive serf as many Lords probably found and therefore good to have rules and privileges. But at the end of the day the serf owed service to his Liege, not the other way around.



A good point, but then again the nobility were free to move about, get news and hear new ideas and regarding reading - for example - if they needed to win a law case they could easily employ someone who could read the law/deeds whatever and win their case to their satisfaction. A peasant with a small strip of land, a cow and a few pennies just wouldn't be able to do that.



Everyone from King down was straight-jacketed into this one - but ultimately the church sided with the nobility - because they could get lots of nice things from them: Land, indulgences, concessions, secular power...
And powerful nobles do seem to have done anything they liked anyway.

Yes different countries had different systems, so I'm thinking mainly of Britain/England but you can generalise a bit to other nations.

Serfs and peasants are not the same thing. While some classes of serf were as disenfranchised as you say, most people living in most medieval countries were not serfs.

Even with serfs, you're wrong in your representation of the relationship. The arrangement with a lord was reciprocal, and in exchange for their fealty, a lord has obligations to their serfs, including protecting them. There were limits on how much work a serf had to do, how long their military service was, and how they could be treated. Lords who mistreated their serfs could be prosecuted.

Worst-case scenario, a serf could achieve freedom by leaving their lord's land and remaining free for a year and one day.

[Gumboot]

Originally Posted by Karkedon

Here's an idea, the less intrusive your totalitarian government is to the daily lives of its people the less they have to complain about. Also, the old adage about a person with a full belly never has a reason to revolt has some weight.

A totalitarian regime by definition intrudes completely in the population's daily life. Which is why they tend to be so unstable. People generally resent having their entire lives dictated to them by authority, and even if those dictates are sensible and in the people's best interest, they will grow tired of it relatively quickly and rebel.

[paranoid marvin]

Originally Posted by Gumboot

A totalitarian regime by definition intrudes completely in the population's daily life. Which is why they tend to be so unstable. People generally resent having their entire lives dictated to them by authority, and even if those dictates are sensible and in the people's best interest, they will grow tired of it relatively quickly and rebel.

I'm sorry , I have to disagree. The vast majority accepts what they are told by tv/newspapers (which can be controlled) and are are happy as long as they aren't overtaxed or underfed and are. The more civilised you are the less likely you are to rebel. The more content you are thanks to 24/7 tv/videogaming/internet browsing and having a full belly, the less likely you are to get up off your arse and protest.

The worst totalitarian regimes act with a heavy hand, and are quickly removed usually to be replaced by the next totalitarian regime). The best (ie most successful) totalitarian regimes rule with a velvet gloved iron fist; keep the masses happy with bread and circuses whilst crush any meaningful resistance with their laws.

[Gumboot]

Originally Posted by paranoid marvin

I'm sorry , I have to disagree. The vast majority accepts what they are told by tv/newspapers (which can be controlled) and are are happy as long as they aren't overtaxed or underfed and are.

No they don't. Even in the USA (land of the gullible and ignorant) the majority of people do not trust the media.

Social networking and the internet has given people access to information in a way never before possible; just look at how central it was in the Arab Spring.

Originally Posted by paranoid marvin

The more civilised you are the less likely you are to rebel. The more content you are thanks to 24/7 tv/videogaming/internet browsing and having a full belly, the less likely you are to get up off your arse and protest.

If you're happy and getting what you want you won't protest. Just look at the response to the Iraq War in the west to see how quickly people with full bellies, 24/7 TV and video games will take to the street if they're not happy. Or the Occupy movement.

Originally Posted by paranoid marvin

The worst totalitarian regimes act with a heavy hand, and are quickly removed usually to be replaced by the next totalitarian regime). The best (ie most successful) totalitarian regimes rule with a velvet gloved iron fist; keep the masses happy with bread and circuses whilst crush any meaningful resistance with their laws.

Can you actually name a single totalitarian regime that has survived longer than a single generation? They're exceedingly rare, and never last long.

[paranoid marvin]

Originally Posted by Gumboot

No they don't. Even in the USA (land of the gullible and ignorant) the majority of people do not trust the media.

Social networking and the internet has given people access to information in a way never before possible; just look at how central it was in the Arab Spring.




If you're happy and getting what you want you won't protest. Just look at the response to the Iraq War in the west to see how quickly people with full bellies, 24/7 TV and video games will take to the street if they're not happy. Or the Occupy movement.





Can you actually name a single totalitarian regime that has survived longer than a single generation? They're exceedingly rare, and never last long.

That's the thing though. Now we're given information overload, so we don't know what's real , what's fabricated and what's somewhere in between. Those who argue with the official version are branded 'conspiracy theorists' and generally mocked by the rest of the population. I dispute that people question what they are shown; they usually believe what they see - but what they believe is what they are shown , which isn't necessarily the same thing.

Where there is a valid point (ie WOMD), people protest - but then what? One or two half-cocked apologies (if you're lucky) and that's it; what really changes? Nothing. People protest, people are ignored, and then they go back to work and it all gets swept under the carpet until next time. Rinse and repeat.

The concept of totalitarianism has only been around for less than a century , so it's hardly suprising that there are many that have gone beyond a generation, but the theory of controlling a nation's people has been around for centuries - the Egyptians for example had Pharoahs's who dictated the lives and religious beliefs of their subjects, and they were around for a long time.

[Gumboot]

Originally Posted by paranoid marvin

The concept of totalitarianism has only been around for less than a century , so it's hardly suprising that there are many that have gone beyond a generation, but the theory of controlling a nation's people has been around for centuries - the Egyptians for example had Pharoahs's who dictated the lives and religious beliefs of their subjects, and they were around for a long time.

Totalitarianism has a specific meaning, and can be applied to civilisations that pre-date the word itself. And yet there aren't very many. You mention Ancient Egypt, yet the Egyptian Pharoah and his government didn't have even remotely near the sort of control a totalitarian regime wields.