unity of gov't and people

ability to mobilize in a hurry

ability to sacrifice for common good

A communist government is a social systemcharacterized by the absence of social classes, and is completely Socialist, thus having poor quality health care for it's citizens. Socialism is basically when the Government starts to take over and control big businesses and the health care industry. Socialism is the material base for communism. The communist government has failed every where it was tried but is still used in some countries, China for example. Totalitarianism is when there is one person in charge of a country (dictator) and they rule with complete power over the country. so basically totalitarian communism is a badly run government system that can't provide for it's citizens and has one person in charge of the entire countries operations whether the citizens like it or not. and is completely irreversible unless the person in charge wants to go through the hassle of reversing it, which has never and will never happen. The totalitarian leader serves a term of however long he or she wants and can appoint the next person in charge without any election.

cause thats how they roled

he overthrew kerensky's provisional government with the bolsheviks

Stop cheating on your work.

Yes, Francisco Franco was a fascist revolutionary that overthrew Spain's legal government. He was supplied with equipment, weapons, and munitions from Hitler and Mussolini.

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.

Yes, it does.

Post-WW I Europe: The Rise of Totalitarian Governments I. The Treaty of Versailles, 1919 1.

Answer this question…To accept the control of the government over their lives

The problems that caused the rise of totalitarian government included mass revolutions from dissatisfied groups.

Because an utterly devastating military defeat.

No power is transferred, it is taken. A man comes along and he just takes power. Anyone in his way is dead or put in prison.

Dictatorships and totalitarian governments acquire power by making promises they feel the public needs to have. They use propaganda to present themselves as the only solution to a nation's deep seated problems. Once in power, they abolish all other parties and use terror to remain in power. The perfect example of this was the Nazi regime in Germany.

Sure, people can vote any time there is an itty bitty box for black rocks an white rocks or an electronic Diebold machine that lets you punch a card or touch a screen. Bit if those votes aren't counted in a fair and democratic manner, you have a TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENT. Boris Bazhanov's Memoirs of Stalin's Former Secretary (published in 1992 and only available in Russian, contains the following quote: "You know, comrades," says Stalin, "that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this -- who will count the votes, and how."

Common features of totalitarian regimes can include several things. Some regimes involved a single ruler with aboslute power and control as the central authority in the nation. Others involve a nation that is governed by a ruler or small group of rulers (oligarchy) with a small administration. Common features of these regimes that common people have to deal with are limited if any freedoms or rights, such as freedom of speech, press, or religion for some examples. These regimes control nearly every aspect of public and private life.

The czar that turned Russia into a police state was Czar Alexander III.

Excellent question. First it should be said that tyrannies did not initially have the connotation they have today. Often, tyrannies were the reuslt of an aristocrat (Eupatridi = "well born one") seizing power from an oligarchy with the support of the poorer and more numerous citizens. This was certainly the case in Athens. Pisistratus (an Eupatridi and war hero) first established his tyranny in 561 BCE by claiming he needed a body guard. He quickly took his bodyguard and took over the polis. Now, Pisistratus was backed by the poor thetes who lived in the hills, and he was ousted by the more wealthy people of the plains and people of the shore. To make a long story short Pisistratus reestablished himself and ruled as a very popular tryant. His rule is generally considered enlightened and ushered in an age of prosperity for Athens....... So why is a Tyranny bad? 1. A tyranny is by definition dependent on the abilities of one person - if that person is enlightened, is is good for the state but if that person is, well..... tyrannical things can get ugly. A great example: When pisistratus died his sons, Hippias and Hipparchus, took over the tyranny. Hipparchus was murdered by the angry lovers Harmodious and Aristogeiton, (it is a long, but interesting story) and Hipparchus became insanely worried that his power was in jeopardy.... This leads us to the second problem with tyranny. 2. A tyrant nessicarily must be concered with the maintance of his power over the needs of the state. In other words a tyrant is primarilly concered with his power and puts the needs of the state secondly. Sometimes these needs coincide - often they do not. 3. Another significant problem with tryanny needs to be understood in its historical context. In Ancient Greece (and indeed most of history), no distinction was made between church and state. This becomes important when we see the feeling of pride the Athenians had in their sacred institution of democracy. This pride and overall high morale led to better warriors, and more content citizens. At the same time, while the citizens could be happy with a tryanny for a while it quickly become oppressive..... why? 4. While a tyranny can be good with respect to the fact that they generally must initially be supported by the people, once a tyrant is in power, he, or his scion, need no nessicarily appease the people. This also makes a tryanny an inherently unstable form of government. 5. Finally, a tyranny is difficult to defend on ethical grounds. Many would agree that a government should rule with the consent of the governed. An arguemnt could be made that the ends justify the means, but a tyranny is just not an effective longtern form of government. What a tyranny was good for was to aid the transition from oligarchy to democracy. After Hippais was removed by the Spartain king Cleomenes and the exhiled Alchmaeonid family, Cleisthenes came to power and essentially laid the framework for Athenian democracy. The tyrannic behaviour of Hippias gave the Athenians a deep hatred for tyranny and paved the way for its connotations today. Also be carefull to distiguish a tyranny from a totalitarian government. The ancients did not have the political mechanisms or technology to implemet a totalitarian government.

The specific answer depends on the nature of scenario, but, generally speaking, totalitarianism is exemplified by an obtrusive government that takes an active interest in every action a person performs. So, any action in a scenario where the government is persistently monitoring citizens, jailing political dissidents for "thought-crimes" or without evidence, or using strongly coercive techniques to enforce laws and government decisions.

Simply because there are fewer impediments to passing laws