what is the difference between a police state authoritarianism and totalitarianism?

[breadisfunny]

i've been looking through various sources but can't get a real clear answer other than police state just use police to monitor the people, authoritarian's are basically just benevolent dictators and totalitarians try to control everything and everyone through any means necessary to stay in power. is this right? also how does a military dictatorship fit into all this?

[Deleted]

Authoritarian seems to be a power that people choose to follow. Someone that the people like to follow.
Authoritarian can still be somewhat open and free, but the one/ones in power are adhered to and their will is followed.

Totalitarian is someone that enforces their power and will regardless. It's the extreme of authoritarianism.

That's what I've gathered at least.

But this site says it's the other way around!

"1.

An authoritarian regime has one ruler, a leader or a committee, the same as a totalitarian, only in an extreme way.
2.

The totalitarian has charisma over his people while the authoritarian imposes fear over those who oppose and rewards those that are loyal to him.
3.

The totalitarian is more of a divine ideologist who will save the people, while the authoritarian is focused more on control and status quo as an individualist.
4.

The totalitarian uses his prophetic leadership to drive the people, while the authoritarian uses political parties, mass organizations, and other propagandas to make the people follow him.



Read more: Difference Between Totalitarianism and Authoritarianism | Difference Between http://www.differencebetween.net/mis...#ixzz4NMDIldMP "

[zealo]

In addition to the above, a military dictatorship is one where the military is in direct control of the state apparatus, e.g martial law being in effect.

[Deleted]

This site states what I stated. Totalitarianism can have aspects of authoritarianism.

http://english.stackexchange.com/que...n-and-dictator

[unbound]

Authoritarianism is an individual or small group that has political power and, as long as you don't dispute their authority, doesn't really care about what is going on in society.

Totalitarianism is also an individual or small group that has political power, but goes a step further in trying to control virtually all aspects of the social life, including the economy, education, art, science, private life, and morals of citizens.

[Skroe]

i've been looking through various sources but can't get a real clear answer other than police state just use police to monitor the people, authoritarian's are basically just benevolent dictators and totalitarians try to control everything and everyone through any means necessary to stay in power. is this right? also how does a military dictatorship fit into all this?

Historic examples.

Police State Authoritarianism - Eastern Germany, Chile under Pinochet, the Khmer Rogue.

Totalitarianism - North Korea

Police State Authoritarianism, the regime maintains it's grip on power through the use of security services, spies and informants. Typically this exists "on top" of a more baseline "state" that has certain laws and rights that are nominally guaranteed but not honored. Police State Authoritarianism is descriptive of the mechanism the regime uses to ensure it's continued control of the state. But rarely are these procedures "baked in" to the fabric of society.

Totalitarianism is more encompassing in that it isn't just a describing how the regime acts, but describes the entire system of life and economics and the fundamental relationship between the individual and the state. in a totalitarian state, the individual is utterly subordinate to the state. Their entire life, from birth through death, is structured as a part of how it serves the interests of the state. Totalitarian regimes invariably utilize Police State tactics, but a key differentiator is that the relationship between the individual and the state is often fundamentally different in a Police State regime than a Totalitarian one. A police state may have a more hands-off approach to affairs that exist out side of certain domains that couldn't threaten regime control. A totalitarian regime will attempt to manage even those for it's subjects.

Pinochet's chile for example utilized security services to disappear people, limit civil liberties, attack political parties, and attack unions. But people generally still went about their persona lives as they saw fit, and held jobs at their discretion. By contrast, in North Korea, where you live, who you marry, what friends you have... truly everything... is dictated by the state.

[breadisfunny]

Authoritarian seems to be a power that people choose to follow. Someone that the people like to follow.
Authoritarian can still be somewhat open and free, but the one/ones in power are adhered to and their will is followed.

Totalitarian is someone that enforces their power and will regardless. It's the extreme of authoritarianism.

That's what I've gathered at least.

But this site says it's the other way around!

"1.

An authoritarian regime has one ruler, a leader or a committee, the same as a totalitarian, only in an extreme way.
2.

The totalitarian has charisma over his people while the authoritarian imposes fear over those who oppose and rewards those that are loyal to him.
3.

The totalitarian is more of a divine ideologist who will save the people, while the authoritarian is focused more on control and status quo as an individualist.
4.

The totalitarian uses his prophetic leadership to drive the people, while the authoritarian uses political parties, mass organizations, and other propagandas to make the people follow him.



Read more: Difference Between Totalitarianism and Authoritarianism | Difference Between http://www.differencebetween.net/mis...#ixzz4NMDIldMP "

wouldn't it be the other way around where totalitarianism uses fear and the authoritarian has charisma? if the totalitarian is the extreme should that not be the case?

- - - Updated - - -

Historic examples.

Police State Authoritarianism - Eastern Germany, Chile under Pinochet, the Khmer Rogue.

Totalitarianism - North Korea

Police State Authoritarianism, the regime maintains it's grip on power through the use of security services, spies and informants. Typically this exists "on top" of a more baseline "state" that has certain laws and rights that are nominally guaranteed but not honored. Police State Authoritarianism is descriptive of the mechanism the regime uses to ensure it's continued control of the state. But rarely are these procedures "baked in" to the fabric of society.

Totalitarianism is more encompassing in that it isn't just a describing how the regime acts, but describes the entire system of life and economics and the fundamental relationship between the individual and the state. in a totalitarian state, the individual is utterly subordinate to the state. Their entire life, from birth through death, is structured as a part of how it serves the interests of the state. Totalitarian regimes invariably utilize Police State tactics, but a key differentiator is that the relationship between the individual and the state is often fundamentally different in a Police State regime than a Totalitarian one. A police state may have a more hands-off approach to affairs that exist out side of certain domains that couldn't threaten regime control. A totalitarian regime will attempt to manage even those for it's subjects.

Pinochet's chile for example utilized security services to disappear people, limit civil liberties, attack political parties, and attack unions. But people generally still went about their persona lives as they saw fit, and held jobs at their discretion. By contrast, in North Korea, where you live, who you marry, what friends you have... truly everything... is dictated by the state.

i don't have a lot of knowledge about east germany during the cold war how did their police state work?