Personal opinion of a member of a historical club - totalitarianismRegardless of value judgment, is it possible to realize it in the first place?

 Totalism, which asked, "Is it feasible?" in the title of the article, does not refer to concrete and practical objects such as German Nazism or Italian fascism in actual history, but to abstract objects that are thought of in the Korean dictionary as "ignoring the interests of individuals or groups, focusing on the interests of the whole country." So, purely totalitarianism as the word is. Let's clarify the subject so that there's no misunderstanding.    No, it'I couldn't think of a plan to write before writing due to the lack of sunlight, but now that I think of it, I think I should rewrite both of the objects mentioned above. So let's divide the concept into "specific totalitarianism" that has existed in history and "abstract totalitarianism" as it means in the Korean dictionary. (Maybe the concept is classified in this way, but I don't know if it's white, but let's do this for now.)     To ask about the value judgment of Sohae, it is natural to hate Sohae-han's "specific totalitarianism" and I also hate "abstract totalitarianism." Let's blow out the candles.Not a Buddhist who wants his family to be well-being and asks the monk to make an amulet...I don't know if I can conclude that it follows Sakyamuni's philosophical ideas) but I think I have a strong tendency. So I hate the belief that assumes a small abstract concept (in the context, I will mean 'state' here). So I don't like "abstract totalitarianism" either. (The specific totalitarianism that I don't like) But as mentioned in the title above, the argument of this article is not a judgment of the value of Sohae. What I'm trying to say is, 'Is it possible to realize abstract totalitarianism in the first place?' The ideal social model in their theory, in which specific totalitarianism actually progressed, would be abstract totalitarianism. But the difference between "abstract totalitarianism," which can be said to be so ideal, and "specific totalitarianism," which can be said to be reality, was not simply "desirable" for totalists, just because "ideal and reality are always far away."       Why was it inevitable? A state is a group after all. It's an abstract concept that draws something in common with each individual and bundles it up. (Honestly, it's difficult to describe even the concept of "individual" as concrete, but if you dig into it microscopically like this, you can't do macrobagu, so let's move on.^^;; Anyway, the concept of a state can be expressed as abstract rather than as an individual) So, the state is a 'complex concept'. The complex concept is that just as chemists find molecules and atoms, they can't find pure elements by excluding things that aren't pure one by one with the kind of "erase method. This concept is not something that is as pure as a molecule or an atom is hidden in it, but when the whole thing is integrated, the concept is completed. Is there a pure concept like atoms and molecules in Korea that doesn't split anymore? Taegeukgi? It became a symbol by giving meaning to a kind of symbol. Territory? It's important, but it's not everything. People? It's more important than territory, but it's not everything. Roh Moo Hyun? There's no citizen, but there's a president. What else?               As seen above, the state is a 'complex concept'. As the totalitarianism says, it's still "total." In this way, the concept is viewed accurately by looking somewhat blurry (?), and the more you try to define it, the farther it gets from the essence of the concept. But I like the definition of people. (Because the concept of abstraction artificially segmenting non-segmental reality from 'birth of new words' in the beginning.) In particular, what you need to trust and follow (in context, it means the country now) should be clearly noticeable. But as I said, in reality, a country is a complex concept that is abstract. However, it is difficult to trust and follow because the substance feels unclear when the object is grasped complexly and abstractly in that way. Therefore, the act of visualizing a complex abstract concept as a simple specific object (haong, which would be the most appropriate to express this action in one word), making the object visually visible. For example, there will be a "national flag" or a "border line" in any country by classifying them into semi-(?) genres, and in the hardcore (?) side, there will be Kim Il-sung's leader Avina, Mao Zedong, the emperor, and Hitler.        There's an error here. The purely idealistic "abstract totalitarianism" is for "the whole," and for the convenience of humans who visualize and look at everything when interposed, replace the object of loyalty with a visual "symbol" that means the whole instead of "the whole." At first, you might have thought it was simply "alternative"? Thinking of it as a kind of "necessary evil." However, it becomes fixed over time and takes it for granted later. Hitler's will is the will of Germany as a whole? Is Mussolini's decision the whole of Italy? Not (at least theoretically). But before you know it, following their will will will follow the whole, and against their decision will fall in love with the whole.