Political theorists like Arendt defined totalitarianism as society in which there is no intervening authority between the state and the citizen, where the state is guided by an elaborate all-encompassing ideology that promises a reachable utopia. Over the years definitions and categorization schemes have varied. Yet what we have here-- "dictators... qualify based on repression of emigration"/"dictators... qualify based on murders of innocent civilians or political opponents"-- ignores these definitions... Apparently it's based on the "original research" of Silverback, not any of the leading poilitical theorists on the subject like Arendt, Popper, Brzezinski, and Kirkpatrick. 172 | Talk 00:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
It's also important to point out that under the classic definitions of totalitarianism, the concept is distinct from authoritarianism-- something that I'm not sure Silverback understands. The point I'm driving at is that innocent civilians are killed and emigration suppressed under all kinds of nasty regimes, not just totalitarian ones. 172 | Talk 00:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I've redirected to a new stub at Totalitarian dictatorship (I'll add a bit to that tomorrow afternoon), because it doesn't seem like there is going to be anything here and it might as well point somewhere relevant. Feel free to undo this if this seems like a too unlikely redirect target. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)