I appreciate this reply, honestly dude. It’s one of the more grounded responses I’ve seen to the whole “totalitarianism” conversation.

You’re right that “totalitarian” is a word with a ton of rhetorical weight. It gets tossed around too easily, especially in Western discourse, and it often ends up flattening really complex situations into moral panic. I get that. And I agree that it’s not a super useful label if we’re only using it as a Cold War cudgel.

But I don’t think that means the concept is totally useless either. Even if no state has ever been purely totalitarian, there have been systems that came pretty damn close in practice. Where surveillance, control, and political violence permeated nearly every aspect of life. East Germany’s Stasi state comes to mind. So does North Korea. Or the Khmer Rouge. These weren’t spooky metaphors, they were fucking real man, and the people living under them weren’t dealing with just vague unease. They were being watched, repressed, disappeared. The fact that no state can perfectly formalize “total control” doesn’t mean it’s not worth talking about when systems get closer and closer to that line.

You also make a strong point about how this kind of framing can sometimes obscure the more mundane, distributed violence of systems like capitalism. I don’t disagree. But I don’t think we have to pick one or the other. Talking about the violence of a centralized state doesn’t mean we’re ignoring the violence of Amazon warehouse floors, or the brutality of economic coercion. If anything, I’d argue that both state violence and capitalist exploitation feed into each other. They’re not separate systems, they’re interlocking. Anarchists (and some Marxists, too) have been making this point for a long time.

And lastly, yeah, I totally hear your critique that labeling a system “totalitarian” can risk overstating or misrepresenting the lives of people under it. That’s valid. But I’d push back gently and say: repression doesn’t need to be absolute to be real. Fear doesn’t need to be universal to shape a population. You don’t need someone literally watching your every move, just the credible threat that they could be. That’s enough to change behavior and maintain control.

So yeah. I’m not married to the term. But I also don’t think we should be afraid to critique deeply authoritarian systems just because the language has been abused. We can hold space for nuance and still call a boot a boot.

Well thats mainly because it’s absolutely baffling to take any term and say “yea no, it’s pointless, don’t use that term”. When a term like totalitarianism exists there is obviously a definition behind. When you hear it, you know what it refers to. For the millionth time:

A state. That controls. Every aspect. Of life.

Thats it! I didn’t criticise a specific state. You’re mind obviously went to USSR. I know that for a fact and ask me how. You think when I use this word I immediately bash any sort of socialist progress in history. That’s a huge problem. We all want progress.

If you’re interested, I’d like to further this conversation. Perhaps in DMs? I want to know why exactly you see my statement as a threat to your political stance. Insult me all you want, I want to see your POV truly.

You’re not a leftist either. You’re a capitalist pig who wants to disrupt any civil discourse between socialists.

What an absolute coward. Bowing down to the USA because Trump told him to. Fucking coward.

Well the US is in a sense also totalitarian, no? Or perhaps more appropriately authoritarian, but even then basically the same as any state everywhere.

The state needs to oppress its citizens in order to exercise dominance. Wether that be through political purges like Stalin did, or how American cops kill people since… every fucking president as soon as the US started existing lol.

So I guess my point is no matter what, if a state exists, it will inherently become oppressive and therefore totalitarian. I want a stateless, moneyless, classless society just like every other socialist wants. And don’t get it fucked up, thats what ALL socialists are inevitably fighting for.

Buddy we’re talking about a definition of a word. You need to control your emotions.

I made a clear statement. Totalitarianism kills. I stand by that firmly. I didn’t say you’re stupid. I didn’t challenge your political position. I purely, fucking, said totalitarianism kills. And if you take my stance on authoritarianism as a political challenge, then I’d honestly hope to god your hands never get anywhere close to power.

I don’t know how to say this without you thinking I’m trying to be condescending, but I wish you good health.

I ask for evidence that the term wasn’t used to describe a fascist state and you send me… a news article? A news article that just plainly says “yea, they were racist”. It’s a fucking term dude. We’re talking about the term not the person and it has a definition, and I’m saying I don’t want a future with totalitarianism.

What the hell are you on about? Are you denying that totalitarianism exists? Oh sorry, can’t use that term. Are you denying that states that controls its citizens exist? No more condescending comments. Tell me.

No need to be so cold.

I have a context of the word totalitarianism, I’m sorry it doesn’t include the person who you think came up with it. If you understand etymology you should understand that the word was, yes invented, but involves the word “totalità” and was purely meant to convey the idea of total control by the state over all aspects of life, political, social, and private. It was in fact used to describe the fascist regime by Benito Mussolini. (Link me any evidence of the contrary in case I’m wrong)

I’m saying generally, as a leftist, I wouldn’t want a state that tells me what to do and what to think (and I wouldn’t want that for you either my friend, but who am I to say that).

Edit: To loop it back to my OG comment, in most cases, and history proves this, a totalitarian state kills.

In some regard, you could argue every state is totalitarian, no?

Communism doesn’t kill. Totalitarianism kills.

The author of the black book of communism tended to write include even people who stubbed their toe as “victims of communism” yea.

I appreciate what other leftists are doing for the cause. As an anarchist, though, I have to interject.

The idea that a revolution needs to be carried out by a central authority is dangerous, as I’m sure plenty of you know. It doesn’t matter how red your new flag is. We leftists shouldn’t think of our state becoming a “better” state, but rather the abolition of the state altogether. Power concentrated in any form, no matter how well intentioned, inevitably reproduces hierarchy and domination. Our goal shouldn’t be to seize the machine, but to dismantle it and build something radically different: decentralized, cooperative, and rooted in mutual aid. Something we all can get behind.

I’d love to hear a marxist pov on this. <3