• starlinguk@lemmy.world
    15·
    2 months ago

    I think it starts as a means for making money and getting power and continues because those involved know that if they give up power they’re in deep trouble.

  • HubertManne@piefed.socialEnglish
    31·
    2 months ago

    I mean we have north korea and russia. Once you can’t suck any more out of the country you expand it if you can to suck out of more. If you take over the world im not sure where you go from there. Guess you hire musk at that point.

  • Libra00@lemmy.worldEnglish
    34·
    2 months ago

    Power for the people in charge, and a combination of enforced stratification of society (with those who support the regime on top of course) and reduced status for, the removal of, or outright sanctioned violence against the people upon whom all of society’s ills are blamed.

  • tetris11@lemmy.ml
    71·
    2 months ago

    north korea: empower a few, enslave the rest, never be challenged for generations

  • vvilld@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    30·
    2 months ago

    There isn’t an end goal. The authoritarian leaders just want to have and keep power for as long as possible. That’s it. It’s not more complicated than that. It’s just power for the sake of power.

    • Pilferjinx@lemmy.world
      2·
      2 months ago

      I’ve always thought that it’s a system of control for the sake of control. I would think such a system would acquire as much power as to ease the effort to control. I agree it’s a nihilistic system that subverts the potential of humanity.

            • reksas@sopuli.xyz
              1·
              2 months ago

              but does it have to be that way for intelligent beings? I dont think the endgame for that is very nice when you add technology to the mix

        • Almacca@aussie.zoneEnglish
          21·
          2 months ago

          I like to take a slightly more evolved view and think that the purpose of life is to enjoy it.

    • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
      23·
      2 months ago

      The most good for the most people, with enough leeway that those who feel unsatisfied can find a constructive outlet and/or isolate themselves. Look at Star Trek TOS for a good representation of what a post scarcity world might look like.

      • adpmsm@lemm.ee
        9·
        2 months ago

        Ah so then the end goal of a totalitarian country would be the most good for a small group of insiders. I think this makes sense from a game theory perspective – the reason people would support the defector (in the prisoner’s dilemma) is because they think he has the capacity to succeed and they believe he’ll bring his supporters along with him into the group of beneficiaries of inequality. I think in most of human history it might have worked. So there’s some dysfunctional thing going on where the people support the party who is exploiting them in exchange for a hoped-for advantage over the other members of the exploited class. (Like the kapos in the Nazi concentration camps)

        Edit: I think in Primo Levi’s book Survival in Auschwitz he says something about how the Nazi concentration camp reflected the wider social reality that is the concentration camp of the world. I couldn’t find the exact quote yet but it looks like his essay “The Grey Zone” in his book The Drowned and the Saved makes a similar argument (I found some good quotes here).

        • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
          2·
          2 months ago

          My personal favorite Kurt Vonnegut book is ‘Mother Night.’ At one point the narrator is in an Israeli prison awaiting trial for war crimes. He has a conversation with one of his guards. The guard was a prisoner in a concentration camp. Every day the guard would hear an announcement, “Corpse carriers to the guard house.” Every day he heard it, and finally he volunteered for the job.

        • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
          2·
          2 months ago

          If you’re going to put words in my mouth, please order me a large Diet Coke and some waffle fries as a side.

          • Lumidaub@feddit.orgEnglish
            1·
            2 months ago

            The question mark at the end of a sentence usually denotes a question. What you said seems to me to imply that we don’t have any non-totalitarian countries because I don’t see any that have these things as end goals (outside of empty promises from politicians).

            For that matter, I don’t even know what an “end goal” for a country would be. That’s what I was trying to get at originally. Countries don’t have end goals, beyond “stay existent”.