Thread:4th of Augustball/@comment-38190122-20200311185625/@comment-34650195-20200420174316

Joseon fell because it was pacifist and isolationist, neither of which is a necessary quality of totalitarianism. More militaristic Goguryeo didn't suffer from those issues and it got defeated only because of participation of China.

And isn't South Korea succesful only because of its connections with Japan, Taiwan, US and EU? Wouldn't it collapse just as badly as North Korean economy if not more would it be isolated from those countries or if those countries' economies would collapse themselves? I don't know any evidence of DPRK being particularly corrupt apart from Western-made mindmaps and statistics that have no way of knowing of DPRK's inner politics. And how is Kim Jong-un "alone"? He may have a lot of power but he most certainly isn't "alone", he has buerocrats and the party helping him and managing things that aren't as important as what he has to spend his time for, like with overwhelming majority of modern and even historical countries. As I explained, relatively low standards of living in DPRK are a consequence of the path they have chosen and their restriction of freedoms is caused by them being under a constant political, economical and informational siege by a big chunk of the rest of the world as well as simply because of DPRK's totalitarian nature. When we are arguing is totalitarianism good or not saying "because it is totalitarian" isn't a working argument.

Again, we are not discussing authoritarianism but totalitarianism. China may not be quite as totalitarian as DPRK but it is still much more totalitarian than most Western countries. And even though power in China isn't as centralized in its leader as it was under Mao it is still quite centralized compared to most Western countries and enough for them to be considered dictators. Also, while power isn't as centralized in the leader as before it is still almost completely centralized in the party.

Russian Empire wasn't practically totalitarian. They allowed various political movements in their country and those who were being suppressed were violent revolutionaries who weren't that interested in democracy to begin with. Nicholas II was certainly not the perfect monarch but he myths about him being "super-incompetent" are simply propaganda. Under him Russian economy was the fastest growing economy in Europe and Russia was dominating the world's agricultural market. Also I don't think not wanting to rule is necessarily a flaw, if anything it makes the monarch/leader more huble and less power-hungry.

Totalitarianism is needed because it is a way to effectively change human society for good, it eliminates crime and it shapes people to be more in line with virtues, at least virtues of the time, which often benefits them and actually makes their lives ultimately freer and healthier. In a totalitarian society a drug addict may turn into a worker, a drunkard may turn into a scientist and a smoker may turn into an athlete.