Totalitarianism

No Switzerland is a republican state.

Democrat state too.

It has never been possible before in history. Today, totalitarianism is impossible.

depends if you mean person or ideology. People who had totalitative governments include: hitler, mussolini, stalin, mao and kim jon un. Idologies that are inherently totalitarian are facists, nazis, monarchists and marxist-leninists

The damage of World war 1 had done to italys economy

apex

It is a system of governance in which just one political party is allowed, and that one party totally controls the lives of its citizens. Dissent is not allowed, and protest is severely punished. Some examples of totalitarian rule are Stalinism, Eastern European Socialism (which was the prevailing system in Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia and Communism in the the Soviet Union until 1989), and of course, Nazism under Adolph Hitler. There are also modern rules who have ruled in a totalitarian style-- such rulers are usually autocratic dictators like Cambodia's Pol Pot or Iraq's Saddam Hussein. China, North Korea and Cuba are also totalitarian states -at present.
one political group having complete control of the government

Authoritarian :) - novanet

The people give up their right to oppose the government when they accept Totalitarian rule.

A Totalitarian society is one is which a dictator rules people who are subjects ( lower than the leader in either wealth or power).

A workplace can be considered totalitarian because there is always a boss who makes the final decisions and whatever the boss says goes, and because there are always people working under the boss. However, you could also make this analogy with other positions like say a student and a teacher. Those who hold higher power are obeyed by those who are in a lesser power, just like if a teacher told a class they were getting a test no matter how hard the class complained the teacher could still enforce an exam.

Britain

A totalitarian government is a an absolute power; it is a government run in a centralized and dictatorial way. It also requires of its citizens complete subservience to the state.Also see dictatorship.

It also has control of all aspects of life and always has a military presence. Usually goes full left wing of right wing in economy (left-controlling it completely or right-laissez-faire leaving it alone)

In a traditional absolute monarchy the king or queen rules (eg Saudi Arabia). These days most monarchies are constitutional monarchies where the monarch is a powerful figurehead but the country is ruled by a government (eg UK, Netherlands). In a democracy the country is run by an elected government (eg France). A totalarian state is one ruled by a dictator, usually one who has seized power (eg North Korea)

to gain total control of the desired contry. This is usually done through propaganda and violence

1 of the defitions of totalitarian is: of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.

Another defition is relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.

This mean that the government is in complete control of the country.

Regulation of every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible.

It is a form of government in which the leaders use complete power over nearly every aspect of human affairs. Authoritarianism and totalitarianism are alike because both are dictatorships, but totalitarian government is more extreme.

government that controls all aspects of life by a group of people

A dictator is the person who runs the government. He does things only to benefit himself and people have no rights. Anyone who protests is killed.

Totalitarian states depend on the authority of one leader (through its military and advisers) being able control completely. The fact of the matter is, there are far more people in the citizenry that the leaders are simple outnumbered.

people voting in secret balloting for the candidates of their choice

they want to rule the world..... they have so much pride an nationalism for there country they want everything..... aka imperalism

30,7 and 205

Orwell's novel was intended as a dark commentary on Stalin's Soviet Union, and was nearly not published as a result, in case it endangered diplomatic ties between the West and the USSR. But it was not aimed solely at Stalin, but at ALL forms of totalitarianism. It serves as a warning that the euphoria of revolutionary liberty against a government or regime that is unequal, unfair and even brutal towards it's citizens can, if left unchecked, lead on to a form of Government that is as bad as, or even worse than, the system it replaced. Orwell was a Socialist who believed in an egalitarian society, but his novel serves as a stark warning that change must be reasonable, moderate, humane and led by people who are truly dedicated to fairness and the wellbeing of all- NOT lead on to hysterical totalitarian tyranny that is fronted by sinister hypocrites who have their own agendas and wish to use the revolutionary process for their own ends. For example, tsarist Russia was a terrible place, an absolute monarchy where there was a huge gulf between the hugely wealthy minority and the desperately poor majority. Over 100 million people died in a famine there in the early 20th Century- the Tsar tolerated no dissent, and any organised opposition to his rule was met with brutal military suppression. There HAD to be a Socialist revolution- but when it came, although there was initially freedom and liberty from the Tsarist yolk, Lenin and Stalin had their own agendas for staying in power and themselves tolerated no dissent from their ideas (.e. Lenin's exile and ultimate assassination of Trotsky etc.) It culminated in the USSR becoming ruled by the insane and tyrannical Stalin, who was the model for 1984's 'Big Brother' and who ended up committing mass genocide, torture and surveillance. It's true that from the 1930s onwards, all Soviet citizens had their material needs catered for, but at the price of their liberty and human rights. After Stalin's death things got better in the USSR, but Communism was forever tainted by Stalinism in the eyes of the Western world. And the same thing has been repeated elsewhere- Hitler restored Germany as a major European power after it's humiliation following WW1 and created an excellent, technologically advanced society that improved the lives of German citizens, but at the price of a psychotic, genocidal regime which had expansionist intentions and ended up killing millions; Chairman Mao's Chinese Revolution freed the country from the horrible inequality of millennia of despotic Emperors, but then he became just as bad as they were; and so on. Even the Western world has suffered from the same thing throughout history- the English Civil War freed the nation from absolute monarchy but replaced it with a military government that tolerated no dissent; the French Revolution liberated France from the indifferent, cruel and callous rule of the French kings but went too far and resulted in The Terror and the rise of Napoleon; the USA gained freedom from British colonialism but then went on to be plunged into it's own Civil War, and in the 20th century a backlash against Communism that resulted in McCarthy, and also a lack of civil rights for black people that, from Victorian times onwards, Britain would never have dreamed of imposing. The British radical Left of the 1980s wanted to replace the inequality of wealth with an inequality of education, with an academic elite in charge of an uneducated underclass- the examples I could give are endless. It is true that usually, Socialist or egalitarian revolutions do as a rule improve the material welfare of the underclasses, but this CAN be at the cost of the loss of their liberty and freedom. There can be exceptions- Communist Cuba under Fidel, and now Raoul, Castro has committed terrible human rights abuses, torture and surveillance of innocent people, but even these are not as bad as the horrific excesses of the Batista regime that it replaced- Tito's Yugoslavia practiced a more liberal form of Communism that the neighbouring USSR and was generally an improvement on what went before it- but in general, Orwell's message was that change must be carefully managed, and achieved in such a way that does not result in the status quo being replaced with something that is just as bad if not worse than what went before it. The same message can be seen more plainly in his novel 'Animal Farm'.

who is the leader in a totalitarian state and how did they get thrie power?

Totalitarianism refering to a totalitarian state is a one party state in which each person is supposed to work towards the good of state, much like the aim of Stalin's USSR, or the Nazi's Germany.

Stalin was a master of using fear, eliminating his competition, scapegoating, controlling education, creating an effective Propaganda machine, controlling the flow of information to the people, and killing any communist party members who opposed his regime. He believed that he was the the true communist leader and to carry out all of his policies, he had to be the USSR's dictator. No threat to his power was too small to liquidate. Within a few years after Lenin's death, Stalin created his totalitarian state.