The people in charge want to have complete control over everything, for their own benefit. They don’t want to have to see anything they don’t like. They don’t want to have to interact with people they don’t like. They want all of their citizens to have to do their bidding, either directly or indirectly, in order to survive. They don’t want any outside “interference” or inside opposition. They want to wield this power for their entire lives, and handpick the person who replaces them at their death. Basically, look at North Korea.

The actual endgame of a totalitarian country is inevitably collapse, though; every totalitarian regime has either fallen or is in the process of falling. Corruption and massive wealth inequalities always result in revolution. Repressive legal codes always produce martyrs to rally behind. Social oppression and persecution often end up with outside countries invading to depose the fascists; and if they don’t, the purity tests get more and more specific until everyone is “out,” leading to large enough blocs to challenge the leadership. The only way that any totalitarian leadership has ever avoided the deadly consequences of their fascism is by voluntarily (or, uh…“voluntarily”) giving up some power in exchange for their lives.

Historically, the only truly stable countries are ones that allow their people a significant amount of financial, social, and legal freedom and security.

Getting to be king of the castle until it collapses.

Look at Russia

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.

Power for the person in charge.

I guess it depends on the ones in power. There is a theoretical possibility that the ones in power acts altruistically for the good of the people.

History however has proven totalitarian countries as brutal regimes, before it inevitablably collapses.

One of the reasons it can’t be for the good of the people is that it needs to pay supporters a lot more.

If you are a dictator, you have to constantly bribe your supporters (military, oligarchs etc). If you don’t, they will replace you with another dictator that will. So the system will inherently be corrupt and not to the benefit of the people.

Any actions that benefit the people comes from a fear of riots and revolution. In other words it’s a delicate balancing act.

Things might be different now and in the future due to more advanced surveillance, personalized propaganda, drones and robotics. Different in that it can be more oppressive than previously.

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.

Soothing the egos of some very insecure, very rich people.

Feeding the ego of those on top by ANY means necessary.

World domination?

Monarchies