Research Into Totalitarian Governments

[The Ace]

I'm sure that some will cite the USA under Obama (he's been called both a dictator and a socialist by his opponents - many of whom can't spell either).

Many would have you believe Scotland under Salmond (the democratically-elected First Minister of Scotland was actually the only UK party leader at the time who commanded a majority) or Sturgeon. Popular politicians are often accused of dictatorship by their opponents.

 

[hardsciencefanagain]

Might not the Dick one be The Penultimate Truth?
Read Solszhenitsin's Gulag Archipelago
studying the Khmer Rouge might be useful,as well

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Solszhenitsin's Gulag Archipelago

I must have read that 30+ years ago. Can't remember what is in it!

some will cite the USA under Obama

He's the least dictatorial US President I can remember!

Scotland under Salmond or Sturgeon

Delusion.
For a start, I think Westminster reserves final authority. I think they can still shutter Wales, N.I. or Scotland devolved powers. Scotland can't have a dictator, other than someone in London, unless they are independent.

 

[Dave]

Might not the Dick one be The Penultimate Truth?

It might be too. It certainly fits The Days of Perky Pat but I remember sitting in A-bomb shelters as a theme in many of his short stories.

 

[The Ace]

I must have read that 30+ years ago. Can't remember what is in it!


He's the least dictatorial US President I can remember!


Delusion.
For a start, I think Westminster reserves final authority. I think they can still shutter Wales, N.I. or Scotland devolved powers. Scotland can't have a dictator, other than someone in London, unless they are independent.

That was my point, Ray.

Obama, I think, is pretty much a failure, promising much, but delivering little - to Republicans, though, he's the antichrist's little brother. To label any American politician a socialist is rank stupidity, but that doesn't seem to worry our cousins across the pond (I'm on another forum which is dominated by Right-Wing Americans).

Salmond was pushing through his personal agenda at the indyref - this completely ignores the fact that just about every Scot has a little piece in the back of his mind labelled, "One Day." 45% of Scots shared Salmond's dream of a free and independent Scotland in September, and the proportion has since increased.

Sturgeon's leadership of the SNP to a virtual wipeout of the other parties in Scotland at the General Election has already seen Scotland condemned as a one-party state - conveniently ignoring the fact that the other parties brought it on themselves (the Conservatives for existing, the Lib/Dems for entering a coalition with the Conservatives, and the Labour Party for being sh!te).

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Scotland condemned as a one-party state

Which is nonsense. One party states don't have elections. Or at least no more than one. Also they don't actually rule anything, they are only minority MPs in Westminster, a real one party state has total control. The SNP Westminster MPs don't control anything.

Sour grapes.

 

[Hex]

I don't think anyone really thought Salmond was a dictator. Wasn't the joke that he wanted to be? (I assume it was a joke).

Anyway, it's not very relevant to the OP, which was about actual totalitarian governments.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

actual totalitarian governments.

Idi Amin
Almost every North African and Middle East and Gulf Arab State.
Iran (they are not Arabs!)
Myanmar (formerly Burma)
Possibly still Kazakhstan.

 

[Toby Frost]

I don't think anyone really thought Salmond was a dictator

I've never heard this said by anyone. I've heard other uncomplimentary terms used, though.

I think it was The Penultimate Truth, although you're right - there was a lot of hiding in vaults in the P.K. Dick world. There was some interesting stuff in there about a guy who was the liason with the surface and lied to everybody, which might be of use to the OP. There's also "The Mold of Yantcy", which was about lying to the population, although I'm not sure if they were underground.

 

[Wanderlog]

Stalin, Hitler, Mao and others are good examples of dictators. The problem is, they are utterly obsolete. They ruled in times of paper newspapers. TV owner at their time were a minority, and the only way to quickly brainwash their nations was radio.

If we talk about the present and future, there is no need for killing dissidents on the spot. The truth is, people always tend to believe what they are told, and it's enough to tell them you want over all TV channels. If there is no publicly voiced alternate point of views, the several hundreds of dissidents can't do absolutely anything. People around them will believe what they are told by the government, and dissidents will be ignored. They won't be killed: killing creates martyrs and urges their friends and relatives to take revenge. They'll be simply shut up by other non-lethal means, for one, by restricting their access to public media. You can take modern Russia and China as model examples.

Orwell wrote a great book. Read his "1884". He perfectly demonstrated how "external enemies" can be blamed for internal problems.

So a totalitarian society of the future would be a mix of powerful public media and a police state that suppresses all attempts to voice real peoples' concerns in public (like public demonstrations or articles in the mass-media). There will be no mass executions and big concentration camps, such a system is dangerous for the dictator himself and his cronies in the first place (read about the history and evolution of the USSR in 1950s-1970s). Conflicts of ruler's interests will be inevitable, but all the dogfighting will be done under a carpet. General public won't see it.

I thoroughly recommend "A Day In The Life Of Ivan Denisovich" mind shattering. Some graphic violence in it though, including rape.

It can be a shock for people living in Western countries. However, this description of the Soviet penitentiary system is incorrect. The story was published in the USSR in 1960s during so-called "the Thaw". While it was possible to publicly discuss such things at that time, even then authors couldn't tell all the truth. In fact, Solzhenitsin was blamed by many Russian dissidents of coloring the truth. The reality was much more terrifying. People were shot on the spot just out of a whim of a guard. Hundreds and thousands of them died due to starvation and cold. Sometimes prisoners of labor camps consumed bodies of their dead inmates, and so on. The entire country was terrorized - and in the same time many people sincerely believed that they were building better and brighter future for the entire humanity. Such a mix of feelings and emotions can't be imagined by anyone who didn't live at that time.

 

[mosquiter]

IMHO, 1984 offers the best insight of life under a fictional totalitarian government.

You should also google Saparmurat Niyazov of Turkmenistan, my favorite- built an ice-rink for people from the desert, renamed months after his family members and banned gold teeth while encouraging people to gnaw bones to strengthen their teeth.

 

[Michael Colton]

It depends on what kind of totalitarian government it is. Is the dictator skillful? Is he a moron that essentially stumbled into power via force? That is often a dividing line between the dictators in history.

If he is skillful and intelligent, your best bet to study is Stalin. Despite his mistakes, Stalin was an incredibly gifted political operator. If your dictator is simply a power hungry lunatic, then many of the dictators that came to power via a violent coup that eventually turned their country into a banana republic would be your best bet.

The first name that often comes to mind when one thinks of totalitarianism is Hitler, but I would avoid using him if at all possible. The Third Reich was a very unique situation in history. People who model fictional events, characters, or governments off of Hitler and the Reich are often unable to extract their creations from reality. Their fiction just screams Nazi from the page.

I'm not sure how much research you want to do regarding this topic, but if you would like some suggestions for reading material on various forms of political extremism, totalitarianism, or historical governments feel free to send me a conversation. I have loads of books on the subject left over from graduate school.

 

[JG Martin]

As my story is post apocalyptic sci-fi and the population live in a Vault

Perhaps you should play Fallout 3 to get a good idea?

Just kidding. Although maybe you are writing Fallout fan fiction. I don't know.

Either way. I agree with @Cli-Fi , North Korea is a very closed society which would be similar to a Vault. And the leaders have been very despotic and even whimsical (starring in porn etc) which might liven up the story.

 

[Vaz]

Yeah I love Fallout, but alas my story is totally different and not fan fiction sadly

Actually in terms of video games, I was more inspired by the original Bioshock and Metro.

Oh, and Shadow Of The Colossus

 

[mosquiter]

Have you read Metro 2033 the book? It does not tell much of the government, but it does describe well the creepy atmosphere of the Moscow underground. MINI SPOILER AHEAD MINI SPOILER AHEAD Especially the part with the echoing sounds from the pipes in that caved-in tunnel, yikes!

 

[paranoid marvin]

The perfect totalitarian state is the one where the population doesn't realise it. This happens in 1984, and in plenty of countries today.

Orwell realised what is still true today: control the media and you can control the past,present and future. So much of what he wrote about has come to pass.

 

[Wanderlog]

If he is skillful and intelligent, your best bet to study is Stalin. Despite his mistakes, Stalin was an incredibly gifted political operator.

I can't but strongly disagree. Stalin was only a master of under-the-carpet political dogfighting. He followed the principle "divide and rule" and used it to raise to the peak of his power while exterminating groups of his comrades with support from other comrades. In the end, there was no one who could oppose him. In other areas he was anything but "skillful and intelligent". In fact, his intellect was below average, and he easily bought every kind of pseudo-science nonsense offered to him by any charlatan who managed to have his ear. Even without it, it's enough to say that he allowed Hitler to attack the USSR out of the blue although he had multiple warnings from many independent sources.

 

[Hex]

That was a fairly significant error, it's true, but he survived it, which is perhaps a measure of how smart he really was. Everyone says Trotsky was the intellectually brilliant one, but that didn't help him when Stalin wanted him gone (it didn't help Bukharin either, or Kollontai, or any of the other theorists).

 

[Wanderlog]

but he survived it, which is perhaps a measure of how smart he really was.

Not "smart". Cunning, brutal, treacherous and power-hungry. And paranoiac at that. You know, most foxes are more cunning than an average human being, and most wolves and tigers are more brutal, so those qualities are not the basis for praising a country ruler. In addition, he didn't care a button about human lives. People were only expendable materials for him, nothing more.

However, you still have your point. Stalin is an excellent example of a totalitarian ruler. He was a bloody *******, but exactly such bastards thrive if they manage to seize control. Unfortunately, he's still idealized by many people around the world. So if someone decides to take him as a model for a dictator, he must filter out such opinions extremely carefully.

BTW, it's still questionable who would be worse as a ruler, Stalin or Trotsky. It was Trotsky who invented the concept of "labor army" that was later adopted by Stalin. So Trotsky might be another good model for a dictator. It's not his fault he didn''t become one. Stalin simply got the better of him.

 

[Hex]

I have no argument with any of your descriptions of Stalin. He was a horrible person, but he was a successful dictator.