Research Into Totalitarian Governments

[Vaz]

Yeah I'm more than happy I've got some cracking suggestions, especially from yourself Ray.
I just hope things don't get too heated concerning the discussion of dictators..

Vaz

 

[Vaz]

Now, anyone else have any Movie suggestions regarding the subject

 

[Dan Jones]

Here we go again!

Last King of Scotland (about Idi Amin) is brilliant.
Battleship Potemkin
Triumph Of The Will

But that lot might get a bit heavy, so you could add Iron Sky and both The Dictators (both Chaplin's and Sacha Baron Cohen's films of the same name are great, though not in the least bit related) for a bit of light relief.

And for an SFF twist, try Guillermo Del Toro's early stuff, such as The Devil's Backbone, and Pan's Labyrinth. Both sublime.

 

[Vaz]

Love the last king of Scotland and Pans Labryinth...

I'll have to check out the others you mentioned. Thanks DG

 

[Dan Jones]

NP- Triumph Of The Will is especially enlightening given what you want to study, and you can probably find bits of it on youtube. You might need to have a long shower afterwards though...

Oh, and I forgot the magnificent Downfall (or Der Untergang in German), about Hitler's last days. It features the original scene that became the "Angry Hitler" internet meme, but luckily that's quite early on, and once you get past that it's a staggering film.

 

[Vaz]

Long Shower! :O

Hot or Cold??!

 

[Piousflea84]

You use the most correct world - a phenomenon. It's something outstanding and unusual. However, what is unusual and disgusting today, was typical in the past.

Everything you've written above about the structure of medieval society is absolutely correct. Yes, "a vassal of my vassal is not my vassal", craftsman guilds and so on - everything was exactly like that. However, you pay too much attention to titles and too little to the essence of the matter. How do peasants controlled by barons and their soldiers differ from prisoners in labor camps controlled by the camp's administration? How exterminating rebelled peasants differs from mass-murdering people in death camps? Mercenary armies traveling across the land devastated everything in their path including peaceful settlements not participating in rebellions - how it differs from preventative arrests and executions in modern totalitarian states...? In general, totalitarianism is a system where life and death of majority of the population is controlled by a single man (or a small group of men), and it precisely describes a typical medieval state where 95% of the population (or even more) were peasants (slaves, serfs, and so on).

Besides, there were different types of monarchy. There were feudal monarchies where the aristocracy was mostly independent (and you keep them in mind) and absolute monarchies where "state is me" was the credo of the ruler (that's what I mean). The former one just shifts the description of totalitarianism down to the feudal lords' level.

Any state needs a controlling system. In the Middle Ages, such systems were composed of the aristocracy and mercenaries. Nowadays, they are made of the bureaucracy and law-enforcing agencies. Those components exist regardless of the type of the state, and if you replace "aristocracy" with "bureaucracy", nothing would change in principle. The only difference between then and now is the new ways of control and exchanging information.

Five centuries ago only very few people were able to read and write (illiterate peasants had no opportunity to learn those skills, and the aristocracy simply despised it). Educated people were mostly with the church. In the beginning of 20th century those skills became common, and newspapers thrived. In addition, radio (and television a little later) was invented. To control and eliminate independent information sources, rulers of modern totalitarian states invented new methods that, in addition, allowed them to control the population better and prevent rebellions rather than suppress them. That's all the difference.

Wanderlog, you're 100% correct that ancient societies all practiced bondage (slavery, serfdom, peasantage, peonage, indentured servitude, etc) which is extremely rare in the modern world. However, bondage is very different from totalitarianism. One of the biggest differences is exactly as you said, literacy and telecommunications. An Arya Stark hiding from King Joffrey's men mainly has to fear running into individual people who'd recognize her, especially seeing as how the King's Men love torture, rape and murder as much as their King. On the other hand, a Katniss Everdeen has to worry about propaganda and public opinion, spies and sympathizers, etc. (Oh, and airstrikes. Thank Rh'llor Joffrey didn't have dragons!)

The armamentarium of nasty tactics available to the pre-modern despot basically consists of starvation, torture, rape, murder. That's great if you're Ramsay Bolton but it is very crude compared to the Kim Jong Un armamentarium of all of the above plus secret police, disappearances, propaganda, fake news, fake elections, massive population rallies, plainclothes pro-regime thugs, false flag operations, cyber-harassment/vandalism/theft, etc.

This means that a modern despot enjoys a wider "plot space" of writing possibilities compared to the pre-modern despot. Kim Jong Un has access to more forms of repression than Joseph Stalin did, who had way more options than Emperor Caligula... extrapolate this to distant future and despots will have some truly nasty stuff. (Blood for the Blood God!)

 

[Wanderlog]

Piousflea84,

You see, a typical problem in studying the history is substitution of "aristocracy" for "society". Take a typical history fiction novel. Who are its characters? Princes and princesses, kings and queens, barons and baronesses, dukes and duchesses... Even if they had lost their former status and become outcasts (like pirates of brigands), they were still 'noble' member of the ruling class standing much higher than lowly peasants. However, the real society was composed of slaves (whatever was the actual word for that) and they lived according to very different rules. If a duke forced a baroness to make sex, it was rape. If the same duke forced a peasant woman to make sex, it wasn't worth mentioning. The same was true about murder: an aristocrat simply was no more able to murder a peasant than you can murder a cow. People were sold and bought, killed, tortured and raped on routine basis, and no one, even the victims, considered it a crime. It was simply NATURAL. No one hadn't a glue that there could be another way of life.

This is mostly screened by low-quality books and movies. By putting the aristocracy on display and ignoring all other people (who outnumbered aristocrats twenty to one), they create an impression that then society was similar to ours. But it wasn't. From the modern point of view, it was an inferno. Next time you watch 'The Game of Thrones' simply think who forged the swords they wield and produced the food they eat.

This means that a modern despot enjoys a wider "plot space" of writing possibilities compared to the pre-modern despot.

A modern dictator has much broader technical possibilities for oppressing people, true. However, he lacks one simple but extremely important thing. The king's authority was given to him by God. No one could doubt it - not because someone would kill him for such a blasphemy, but because this idea simply couldn't occur to anyone. It means that a medieval king could kill, torture, rape, wage war and so on, and he still was in his own right. He could be killed, but his replacement was always chosen among other candidates "authorized by God.'

A modern dictator has no such godly support. He must permanently prove his right to the throne - either by sheer force or by other means like propaganda. That's what he spends most of his time on. And he always remembers that every his crime might be punished in the future if he stops being a dictator. That's why he has little time to spare on trifles like developing his country, and that's why he must have a large crowd of supporters who wouldn't immediately betray him. And collecting such a crown means the dictator must buy their support in one way or another. It significantly restricts his power comparing to the ancient king's one.

 

[Dave]

I think you are arguing entirely different things here. At least, I think you are both correct. (I don't agree about the rape. All women were considered the property of men, even a baroness once married. In that respect 'Game of Thrones' is correct.) However:

A modern dictator has much broader technical possibilities for oppressing people, true. However, he lacks one simple but extremely important thing. The king's authority was given to him by God. No one could doubt it - not because someone would kill him for such a blasphemy, but because this idea simply couldn't occur to anyone. It means that a medieval king could kill, torture, rape, wage war and so on, and he still was in his own right. He could be killed, but his replacement was always chosen among other candidates "authorized by God.'

This is a very important historical point and one that cannot be over-emphasised. The English King was descended from God via Adam, Abraham and David, and his power was absolute. Emperors and Kings had the same god-given absolute power in China, Japan and elsewhere.

It does matter in what period of history you are writing in though. The Magna Carta was about giving the King boundaries, and that no man should be above the rule of law. After the Wars of Religion and spread of Protestantism the power of the King was frequently questioned. The English Civil War was fought over this and after the Glorious Revolution Kings never had that power again. The French invented The Terror without any recourse to Royalty.

I think the OP, Vaz, is writing in a post-apocalyptic world as he mentioned "remaining humans." How the inhabitants of his world view their Dictator will be a product of the religion, education, tradition, politics, science, economics, society structure and practically everything else that he invents in his world.

 

[Venusian Broon]

This is a very important historical point and one that cannot be over-emphasised. The English King was descended from God via Adam, Abraham and David, and his power was absolute. Emperors and Kings had the same god-given absolute power in China, Japan and elsewhere.

Surely Dave, dictators can easily by-pass this religion stuff and get into exactly the same position as those you mention above. Stalin got rid of god and demanded that his people did the same (although he would use religion when it was useful for him) whereas Hitler, by luck it should be pointed out, became a mystical demi-god practically worshipped by many of his people, again with no need to be 'propped' up with religion. He and Stalin where both the strong fathers of their respective nations with no need to invoke a higher commander-in-chief.

Charles the first had God giving him authority, Hitler had Providence (whatever that was) - surely all that mattered was 1) their self-belief 2) What others believed about them.

 

[Dave]

Yes, that would need to be addressed within the fictional world building and is totally possible. All I am saying is that in that 'dark ages to medieval' period setting in which most 'sword and sorcery' is written, you would find it improbable if not impossible for a peasant to ever question this fact. You are going to create a very weird world if it is not true. However, post-apocalyptic worlds are by nature, weird.

 

[Vaz]

Hmmm, you have given me some good food for thought there Dave.

So maybe in my world, instead of some political coup or ruling with absolute fear and terror my dictator could have complete rule because of religion.....

For example. He could have discovered the Vault and led a dozen or so stragglers to safety. Whom then worshipped him and future generations where brought up to do the same and he could be seen as some kind of god?

Then my MC questions not just his rule but the way of the society within the Vault and escapes. I think, for me that would be really interesting to write and slightly more complex. More nuanced in the way I am imagining it..

Thanks again guys - Elliott

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Very many religions have a Messiah like figure, many times these have been exploited by unscrupulous leaders pretending to be one or using a puppet.
Especially at times of apocalypse such claims may be believed. Just look at 19th C & 20th C.

 

[Piousflea84]

Wanderlog,

I see we are "arguing with each other" while also agreeing on many things. Your point is that human liberty and human rights are generally much better in higher-tech societies, and much worse in pre-modern ones. This is 100% true. Everything you said is correct, and I sure wouldn't want to live in medieval times.

That said, you are greatly over-stating the power of the "Divine Right of Kings". Kings/Emperors/etc have frequently used religion to justify their rule, but this wasn't always the primary source of their power, and losing the backing of the faith was not necessarily lethal to a king's rule. In medieval-to-Renaissance Europe the Pope frequently excommunicated kings in order to strip them of legitimacy. However, the excommunicated kings didn't just take that lying down, some of them sought the support of an "Anti-Pope", and Henry VIII even started a completely new Church. Lots of faithful Catholics announced their defiance of the King, but they were killed/exiled/forced into submission. While he was greatly disliked, Henry VIII died of old age and not of any violent revolt.

In some cultures "divine right" behaves like a consequence of earthly power, as opposed to the other way around. In Chinese history, Confucian beliefs teach that when the ruler is virtuous the land is healthy/prosperous/peaceful. Therefore if the land was impoverished and violent, the ruler must not be virtuous, so it was okay to overthrow him. This isn't too far from the (generalized pagan) belief that any time things are bad, someone must have offended the Gods, so we better'd find someone to sacrifice.

***
Vaz,

One of the very cool recurrent themes in science fiction (post-apocalyptic as well as extra-terrestrial) is the idea of scarcity as a religious-like belief system. For example, the extreme scarcity of water in "Dune" led to all sorts of cool stuff about saving your water, giving water, spilling "water" (blood) etc. Of course "Dune" also had a bunch of honest-to-goodness religious beliefs, unrelated to water.

In one of my partially-developed storyverses, a group of human colonists become stranded in an exceptionally metal-poor star system when they are "permanently" cut off from the hyperspace lanes. While the planet is capable of sustaining extensive plant life, humans have to modify their own genome just to survive with the very low amounts of iron, zinc and other minerals in their diet. The planet is so mineral-poor that every scrap of metal has to be recycled over and over again, using metals only for the most critical structures and machines. They create a metal tracking-and-rationing AI that becomes self-aware and, after many centuries, is worshiped as a Goddess by an agrarian populace forced to live and work in pre-industrial conditions since everything is built from wood and stone.

Only the lucky very few can live in steel buildings and work on the very few spaceships that scour deep space for the very few iron-rich asteroids that are the only source of new metal - to the rest of the population these astronauts are seen as supernatural, angel-like beings.

You could take a similar approach with any society-defining shortage. If gasoline is the main shortage, then people will define societal structures around gasoline (see old "Mad Max"). If fertility is a major problem then fertile women become a society-defining resource (see new "Mad Max"). If everyone has to take iodine tablets every two weeks or they will die from the contaminated post-apocalyptic atmosphere, maybe they will build up a political and quasi-religious belief system around iodine tablets. That relies upon the iodine tablets being a scarce resource... the moment society figures out how to mass-produce iodine tablets, they become mundane like food and water and can no longer be venerated.

One common fictional theme is the government creating an artificial scarcity in order to make it easier to control people. For example in the "Wool" series, the rulers of the Vault create artificial shortages in all sorts of technologies (cameras and computers are hyper-expensive and even sending an email costs a fortune) so that people will "worship" the Information Technology department. This is plausible only because the Vault is extremely isolated from the outside world. If an iodine-worshipping society intentionally suppresses knowledge of iodine manufacture in order to protect the divine power of the iodine priests, they better'd not run into a neighboring country with silos full of iodine pills. Instead, it is much better if a spunky protagonist discovers an old book about making iodine pills - the iodine priests will certainly try to kill her, and you've got a plotline already.

 

[Wanderlog]

It does matter in what period of history you are writing in though.

Yes, of course. I keep in mind medieval societies like France, Italy, Spain and so on in 11-15th centuries. Crusades, heretics burned alive, total wars, and so on. Later on (since the Renaissance), we can see gradual development of elements of civil society till the moment they took over and completely destroyed the old system.

Stalin got rid of god and demanded that his people did the same (although he would use religion when it was useful for him)

Well, Stalin didn't exactly get rid of God. He along with other Bolsheviks got rid of the old Orthodox Church that tried to resist their attempts to control everything and everyone. Stalin restored the Church (under his full control, of course) in 1940s during the WWII. In addition, he implemented a new system of beliefs very similar to religion (building bright future for next generations, freeing the world from nasty capitalists, we fight and die to let out grandchildren live happy, everything like that). And he took the place of God in this system. That's why the very people he exterminated shouted his name when his executioners shot them and beat them to death. That's why he's so popular today - religions rarely die completely.

Many dictators since then used the same method. However, such a system rarely works against the dictator's closest supporters. They know him too well to fall victims to such tales...

So maybe in my world, instead of some political coup or ruling with absolute fear and terror my dictator could have complete rule because of religion.....

It's a good idea but then your should explain very carefully why your society is so prone to religious tales. The higher the technological level of the society is, the more educated its members are, the lesser people are inclined to behave on the basis of purely mystical matters.

Kings/Emperors/etc have frequently used religion to justify their rule, but this wasn't always the primary source of their power, and losing the backing of the faith was not necessarily lethal to a king's rule.

Of course, they always had the army and their vassals to lend them support. A weak king inevitable became a puppet of lords or was killed by another candidate to the throne. However, religion was always among the most powerful tools for controlling the society.

In Chinese history, Confucian beliefs teach that when the ruler is virtuous the land is healthy/prosperous/peaceful. Therefore if the land was impoverished and violent, the ruler must not be virtuous, so it was okay to overthrow him.

One small addition: the ruler of the land was always an appointed state official, not the emperor. If something went wrong, that official would have been recalled and replaced by another one. However, no one ever disputed the power of the emperor, the Son of God. Even rebels and bandits respected him (or sometimes her). It's completely another matter, of course, that the emperor was often a puppet of his courtiers.

 

[Piousflea84]

One small addition: the ruler of the land was always an appointed state official, not the emperor. If something went wrong, that official would have been recalled and replaced by another one. However, no one ever disputed the power of the emperor, the Son of God. Even rebels and bandits respected him (or sometimes her). It's completely another matter, of course, that the emperor was often a puppet of his courtiers.

I believe you have mixed up Chinese and Japanese culture. Chinese culture has never had a monolithic Imperial state religion. China has traditionally contained a mix of non-organized ancestor worship, Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism. Out of those belief systems, only Confucianism ever promoted the veneration of an Emperor as a god-like figure. Even then it was mainly as a matter of preserving the natural hierarchy of the world. (children obey parents; wife obey husband; subjects obey lord) The more traditional religions of ancestor worship and Taoism have no concept of a monolithic earthly religious leader; anyone who is virtuous and harmonious can have immense spiritual power. The Emperor has been overthrown umpteen times, and Chinese history is full of periods in which multiple would-be Emperors competed for the throne. (most famously the Three Kingdoms Period)

Now, traditional Japanese belief (Shinto) holds that the Emperor is a direct descendant of the Sun Goddess, Amaterasu; the Emperor has indeed never been deposed (only manipulated) and so the Yamato Dynasty is the longest-lived imperial dynasty in world history. The Yamato emperor has never been overthrown; even the one total defeat (WWII) resulted in a surrender speech delivered in an archaic form of Japanese which may or may not be interpreted as an unconditional surrender. (controversial to this day - some people believe that the Emperor never formally surrendered but merely allowed the country to de facto surrender)

 

[Ray McCarthy]

The Emperor has been overthrown umpteen times, and Chinese history is full

Chinese view for almost 2000 years was that if you SUCCESSFULLY overthrew the Emperor, then obviously you deserve to be Emperor, and thus any "divinity" associated with it was yours now.
Huángdì = Emperor from 221BC (unification) to 1912 (Mandarins)
The title predates 221BC and means "Son of Heaven". This was a Confucian view. It didn't mean divinely appointed in sense of European Mediaeval Kings or Japanese Emperor.
The Chinese political concept of the Mandate of Heaven essentially legitimized those claimants who emerged victorious.
More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Emperor
We often think of China 221BC to 1912 as Feudal. But in the European sense it certainly wasn't.
Several Emperors became Emperor while their father was alive, or were commoners or descended from commoners. c.f. Henry VII etc.

 

[Piousflea84]

Huangdi comes from Huang and Di which were two titles used by pre-unification "emperors". (they both meant a ruler greater than a "king", wang) The phrase "Son of Heaven" (tian zi) was a self-proclaimed title that was used by both pre-unification emperors and Imperial-era huangdi. The tian zi title does not "belong" to any specific Chinese or pre-Chinese religious tradition. It is worth noting that the First Emperor, Qin Shi Huang, hated Confucianism and burned Confucian books. He very definitely did not derive any of his authority from Confucianism.
Reference: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_books_and_burying_of_scholars)

Pre-ROC China (221BC -> 1912) alternated between periods of unity and stability (ie Ming Dynasty) where people of different racial backgrounds (Han, Guang, Minnan, Hakka, Man etc) all identified themselves as Chinese, and periods of extreme amounts of infighting. (ie Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period) The Chinese were poly-cultural and poly-religious to a larger extent than most historical empires - the closest comparisons would be Roman and Mughal Empires. Therefore, the historical Chinese use of the "Mandate of Heaven" and "Son of Heaven" are very close to how the Roman Patricians claimed descent from the Gods as an exercise of realpolitik (political power allowed you to self-designate a patron God, not the other way around).

 

[Ray McCarthy]

It is worth noting that the First Emperor, Qin Shi Huang, hated Confucianism and burned Confucian books.

Yes, we mentioned that earlier. Nevertheless, the idea was Confucian.

Therefore, the historical Chinese use of the "Mandate of Heaven" and "Son of Heaven" are very close to how the Roman Patricians claimed descent from the Gods as an exercise of realpolitik

Yes.

 

[MWagner]

As has already been noted, authoritarian regimes need some kind of support - nobody can run a dictatorship alone out of nothing but fear. While we tend to think of a cadre of cronies who benefit materially from being part of the inner circle, we should also consider that authoritarians has a certain broad appeal as well.

In the secure, orderly, comfortable West, we tend to overlook how awful chaos can be. We have little cultural memory of the lawlessness and privation that often accompanies a lack of strong central authority. Banditry, the breakdown of commerce, famine. The dread of going out of doors at night, or travelling from town to town. The absolute catastrophe of a local crop failure. The rise of brutal strongmen in every village or county. Is it better to have one all-powerful tyrant, or a bunch of competing smaller tyrants? The latter tends to leave more people dead, and the society more vulnerable to large-scale invasion and exploitation by foreign powers. Powerful, central authority - even when maintained by force - tends to have more appeal with the common folk than we might imagine.