Thread replies: 13
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
Anonymous
is totalitarianism really unsustainable? 2017-09-04 06:03:27 Post No. 3332772
[Report] Image search: [Google]
is totalitarianism really unsustainable? 2017-09-04 06:03:27 Post No. 3332772
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: kim-jong-un.jpg (163KB, 1440x960px) Image search:
[Google]
163KB, 1440x960px
I hear this idea sometimes that a totalitarian system cannot be sustained for a long time, because it will collapse into itself, people will overthrow it etc.
But let's actually look at this. The three original totalitarian states were Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. However, two of these were overthrown only by external military forces - who knows how long they could have persisted if ww2 didn't happen. Stalin was never overthrown and the only reason the USSR didn't continue being Stalinist is that Stalin failed to introduce a clear successor and the guy who eventually won the resulting power struggle decided to reform the state.
On the other hand, we have North Korea who figured out a system of succession. They have their third Kim now and still operate under the same system and show no signs of collapse, despite every odds being against them (piss poor economy, many outside enemies etc.)
There were also some other derivative dictatorships, like the Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe which tended to fall when they tried becoming less oppressive. The Hungarian revolution of 1956 for example broke out on the wake of a sort of de-stalinization campaign.
tl;dr: It looks like a totalitarian state can be quite stable if they stay consistently totalitarian and can sort out succession.
>>
>>3332772
I would argue totalitarianism is only unsustainable insofar as they will be less developed than democracies by necessitiy.
And if you are a totalitarian dictator and the difference in military power becomes large enough, democracies are gonna fuck you up.
>>
I'm pretty sure that the very fact that WW2 happened is part of why a totalitarian system is considered unsustainable.
>and show no signs of collapse
Ignoring your problems does not mean they are not there. The system could collapse any second. Be it war, the death of Kimg Jong Un or others.
Similar Stalin and others were able to ignore their problems by sheer brutality and force.
Stalin being crazy and killing everyone off, not appointing a successor, is part of totalitarianism, it breeds craziness because the power is so focused on a few people.
But it also depends on how you define stable and sustainable. The systems existed for quite a bit, so it was stable is some sense. The fact that our birthrates are low and that Islam is taking control over the western world shows that our current system is also not sustainable.
>>
Is that photo a shoop?
>>
>>3332772
At least they don't have a Rothschild bank in the DPRK.
>>
>>3332772
Better to know your ruler than be lead by the puppets of yid banking psychopaths.
>>
>>3333101
What about it makes it a shoop?
>>
File: kim_goes_to_cafeteria.jpg (122KB, 600x1034px) Image search:
[Google]
122KB, 600x1034px
>>3334989
good for them
>>
>>3335000
today's working class
>>
>>3335000
>jeez Jongun, that was your uncle!
>>
>>3335000
All I think about when I see this pic is how the worker probably died if the Norks got word of his internet fame
>>
>>3332772
North Korea is only alive by the graces of China and it being controlled by the military. You do know that Anon?
If China was withdraw it COMPLETE support from North Korea it would collapse on its own or it would do something dumb and get raped to death by SK and the US.
>>
>>3332909
>Islam is taking control over the western world
It isn't, though. Islam only has something like 10% of Europe.
Thread posts: 13
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2