Difference between authoritarian and totalitarian states
According to Karl Lowenstein, "the term 'authoritarian' denotes a political organization in which the single power holder - an individual person or "dictator", an assembly, a committee, a junta, or a party monopolizes political power. The term "authoritarian" refers rather to the structure of government than to the structure of society. An authoritarian regime confines itself to political control of the state.
The governmental techniques of a totalitarian regime are necessarily authoritarian.[2] But a totalitarian regime does much more. It attempts to mold the private life, soul, and morals of citizens to a dominant ideology. The officially proclaimed ideology penetrates into every nook and cranny of society; its ambition is total.[2]
Totalitarian regimes seek to destroy civil society i.e. communities that operate independently of the State. Neither the Italian fascists nor the Nazis completely "destroyed their respective social structures", and so these countries "could rapidly return to normalcy" after defeat in World War II. In contrast, attempts to reform the regime in the USSR "led to nowhere because every non-governmental institution, whether social or economic, had to be built from scratch. The result was neither reform of Communism nor establishment of democracy, but a progressive breakdown of organized life".[2]
