The concept of totalitarianism as an actual political arrangement of 20th century socialist countries has been challenged for over two decades. Recent scholarship from historians seeking to break from the so called “Totalitarian School” have posited “new” interpretations of history making use of information from recently declassified archives in particular from the Stalin period of the USSR. With this in mind we are not only met with factual disputes regarding the Cold War era historians who were well received by unsurprising bedfellows but also met with an epistemic problem of how one interprets history within a spectrum of ideological lenses. This will not be a focus on the particulars of state organization of the 20th century but rather posit the totalitarian concept to be a more appropriate description of modern capitalist states. The problems of this idealist and unscientific interpretation of states in general are taken into account and thus serves to be a platform of critique to unveil the consequences of liberal dogma that fancies itself “post-ideological” when writing about history.
	What is “totalitarianism”? To quote a common definition: “Totalitarianism is a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible.”. The concept of totalitarianism surfaced at its peak during the Cold War era and has had continual appraisal and acceptance in mainstream historical and political dialogue since then. For Marxists this is not surprising, for “totalitarianism” is not separate from the epistemic and idealogical positions of the historians who proposed it and is thus not separate from their ideological ancestral cousins. In short “Great Man Theory” plays a crucial role in this analysis of history which puts the popular figures of history at the reigns of historical development and progression itself as opposed to material relations of production themselves. With that in mind we see here a political structure that is run by the ideas of men irregardless of actual existing social conditions (the economic base, famines, war etc...) and the will of those in charge dictate the movements of development independent of all other factors. With all this in mind we are met not only with an epistemic problem but also a problem of basic historical inquiry. This inquiry shows 20th century socialist states as often chaotic in their organization. Indeed, the state apparatus of the USSR was not a consistent line of obedience to a unanimous Party line. Factionalism, war, and sabotage (internal and external) was a frequent threat to the USSR since its inception to its demise in 1991. The crucial element here involves internal disputes within the state apparatus itself. For totalitarianism to work , by its logic, it requires factionalism and internal sabotage to be nonexistent. In fact many on the left have blamed a lot of the short comings of the Soviet model on a lack of centralization and other characteristics that would make totalitarian models seem more appropriate. With all of the successes of the Soviet model from drastic increases in living standards to the ability to fend off the worst of threats we still see a state in constant chaos that would not have been able to promote this totalitarian way of life even if they wanted to. Clearly we can see that the totalitarian model does not fit with the USSR nor any country/republic of the 20th century and must be dismissed as idealist and ahistorical.
	What room is left for totalitarianism if the descriptions of such societies do not fit the intended historical narrative of the 20th century? If there is any hope left for this perspective the answer lies not in the 30's or 40's but the present day.