Favourite form of totalitarianism.

They are all about placing the entire country behind the state, but they achieve this in a number of different ways. Love one with extremist vigour or hate them all none can deny they wouldn't mind commanding their own totalitarian nightmare. So which one resonates with you the most?

Military dictatorship.
The simplest form of totalitarianism, a group of thugs organised under a general for mutual gain, taking what they want.

Monarchy.
A small militaristic aristocracy with strong codes of conduct, King and nominated heirs aimed at preventing endless military coups between powerful rivals.

Empire.
An international military juggernaut that allows it's provinces the freedom to oppress their inhabitants in their own way in exchange for taxes.

Fascism.
Structured like a monarchy except the elites are not part of a rigid aristocracy and the dictator is always absolutist. The oligarchy really don't bother hiding the fact that they're the bad guys, no codes of conduct here, fascists idealise amoral behaviour apart from the belief that sacrificing everything for the state and it's dictator is the best thing ever.

Communism.
Communism is more of an ideal used to prop up a military dictatorship than a system of government itself, whether communism is actually possible or not is up to debate. After frictions begin to develop between generals the military dictatorship it usually evolves into something resembling fascism except with fascist amoral idealism replaced by communist ideals.

Theocracy.
Similiar to communism in that an ideal is used to justify tyranny, the state does the interpreting and enforcement of it's religious laws and takes extreme measures to ensure people believe they are legitimate and believe in their religion, people are indoctrinated into believing only the state's notions of what is right and wrong are true. The nation's despot is not considerred the greatest thing ever, god is, and of course the despot interprets the word of god.

Other.
There is a whole world out there still with many new avenues to form a totalitarianism, if you have any ideas please feel free to share!

I'd like to see how a totalitarian monarchy would look like today in a developed country.
I mean, it wasn't very totalitarian back then simply because they didn't have the surveillance technology, so how would it be like with television, radio and the internets?

>>2
Saddam's regime was evolving into a Monarchy, despots prefer their sons to become the next leader due to their personal attachment to them, it also prevents fears and doubts concerning what will happen after they die making rule easier.

There has to be some kind of benevolent, beneficial totalitarianism... somewhere

>>4
The best bet in any search to discover the benevolent totalitarianism would be within the confines of your own asshole, here more than anywhere else are you likely to find what you seek.

AIocracy:

a world governed by an AI. Computer says NO.

That is automated Technocracy.  I would prefer governments run GPS based versions of SimCity and Civilization, it would take care of many problems in developing countries.  Like constructing buildings with working utilities.  Some countries just don't bother with it.  Of course they would be spending on borrowed money, but in SimCity2K you can borrow $50,000 and make a good enough profit to pay it off quickly.  Just make sure you dedicate 1/4 of the map to hydroelectric power, and construct extremely long areas of industrial, commercial and residential.      

Why do you stupid libs hate totalitarianism?

Democratic Empire:

The guise of democracy and freedom to control large amounts of territory under the central command of one group of people.

>>9
What if the people they "oppress" use their freedom to no longer be oppressed? Sorry but that system of government is impossible and has never occurred.

i'd probably go for the monarchy option. Yes, it sucks 1 guy gets to decide everything, but it's a way more stable situation long-term than any of the others, unless of course the 1 guy runs out of relatives and then dies.

>>10

Because it's only there to make people believe they have freedom, but when exercising that freedom the authorities and federal agencies crack down on any form of organized rebellion fairly quickly.

>>12
If there is a rebellion people don't believe they have freedom.

Hence they are made to believe their current state is freedom, through reassurances of mass media, politicians, and patriotism that is promoted as morally right.  Enough people believe in this ideology to the point that they support the government repression of open rebellion, seeing the rebel as an evil, immoral, mentally deranged criminal.

i'm surprised no ones mentioned Zionism yet

The form of totalitarianism where I am the God-King.

>>15 You mean kikery and KOG. Zionism is actually good when the kikes are ghettified and don't infest the rest of the world. It's good to have a ghetto for the kikes.

>>14
Why would someone support government repression of their own rebellion? That could only occur in the form of a tyranny of the majority.

>>15
Define Zionism's totalitarian system.

>>16
What system do you believe would be best to run your totalitarian regime?

>>17
Define ghettoes as a totalitarian system.

>>10
>>13
>>18

What are you, dense? 

Are you retarded or something?

>>20
I am the God-King.  a mix of stalinist with some pre WWII jap emporer.  Maybe a little Augustus for flavor.

>>19

only Jews get to really participate in the government.  in a few years, Arab Israelis will out number the Jews, but do you think they'll just give up their precious Likud Party?  It'll be like the Jew version of Saddam's Iraq, where a small minority rules the country ruthlessly.

>>22
Sorry for pointing out the holes in your argument. I will be sure to just agree with you without question in the future.
>>23
What's wrong with Hitler?
>>24
Could it be defined as an Oligarchy, like fascism and monarchy, with an aristocracy consisting of jews and an oligarchy of elite jews in place of a hereditary head of state?

>>25
What's wrong with Hitler?
He was an underachiever. Everywhere I go there are kikes.

>>25
Hitler was a crazy fuckup who caused Germany to lose WWII.  Stalin and Augustus were winners, and the Japanese emporer was a god to his people.

>>26
>>27
But it looks as though you are using a pick and mix approach, surely you cannot pass up Hitler's troll value?

>>6
Deus Ex already tried that. It's a brilliant idea if an infallible government AI capable of true judgement could ever be made. Sadly a long way off and with many possible flaws (eg. remember how Walton Simons tried to set himself up as global dictator? could easily happen if such a project were not extremely guarded by people genuinely wanting such a fair and benign government).

As for me, I think Empire worked out fine until we were hit by WW1. So now, parliamentary democracy. But if I were to support a totalitarian government, it'd have to be athiest, so that rules out divine right monarchy and theocracy.
Which leaves communism, military dictatorship (yucky and not fun) and bland fascism.
So by deduction (not because I like it) of those options, I'd go with communism.

>>9
Great idea, but susceptible to corruption and ultimately dictatorship. Some Empires were showing signs of heading this way anyway (Britain and France, mainly, the others were more ruthless and corrupt [Germany, Japan, Spain, Russia, Ottomans, etc]).

>>29
Not OP.

Post-communist Kleptocracy

>>31
gb2 krelmin putin

Dear NSA spooks/watchers of the internet,

I love you, please pay me and I'll love you and never complain and sing your praises. $200K a year and you own my soul and my keyboard and anything I can lend to your prestigious organizations. I will drop all interest in undermining you and work actively on your behalf to spread compliance with our ways of doing things. Indoctrinate me or force me to worship at an alter, it's all the same if I work for you and my life is comfortable. Don't get me wrong, I'm a mercenary that shit gets done, but you've made it imminently clear that being the scrappy underdog trying to fight what's cleary inexorable is a fools game, and doesn't pay well to boot. I get shit accomplished and I know the psyops game because I've played the game with you long enough.

Call me.

I think I'd personally go with Monarchy.  It's the one form that lasts.  Most monarchies have lasted thousands of years (longer than any republic or democracy), though I think I'd run my state in a more Fascist way.  Other than the actual king, poat go to the qualified, not the children of nobility.  Also, the economy should be run for the good of the people, not the business owners.

>>34
What do you do when "the people" are a part of the "business owners?"

bolshevism

Less Government is always the answer.
Any and all gov't is in the business of limiting freedoms.
I'm not an anarchist by any means, but I am a Libertarian and believe gov't should be limited to the barest form.

Government is like fire, it can be useful.  And too much will kill people and take your things forever.

Believe it or not I started this thread back in the day. Wow, it's like looking into my mind in the past, apart from a few missing commas and minor typos I was actually pretty eloquent. My standards have slipped...

>>39
Yes, we all talked about it and agree..You're not very good anymore..