i'm not going to extend this discussion further (nothing personal), but i want to say this:

you say the definition of totalitarianism is straightforward and unambiguous, but definitions don't exist in a vacuum. even the most seemingly self-evident definitions have a reasoning behind them. and my problem with totalitarianism (and likely the other guy's problem as well) is that it is an inherently anti-communist definition. we already have a term for oppressive regimes that control the roles and behavior of their citizens tightly with a rigid hierarchy: fascism. but fascism is fundamentally right-wing, so liberals can't use this to vilify socialist regimes (and trying to make up bullshit like "left fascism" would make them look like idiots). totalitarianism, as a concept, solves this problem for them: it conveniently abstracts two policitally opposite kinds of regimes into a single category. then liberals can use it to defend capitalist "democracy" from its left-wing enemy, socialism, and its pretend enemy, fascism.

my mind immediately went to the ussr because that's exactly what the idea of totalitarianism was made for. i'll say it again: it creates a false equivalence between the fascist regimes that terrorized europe in the 20th century and the socialist regimes (the ussr, china, cuba, vietnam, etc) that represented a massive threat to capitalism. it's an attempt to extend the fear of fascism to successful socialist regimes

i checked your profile and it looks like you're an anarchist. i'm not gonna argue for or against that, but it's pretty well stablished among communists that totalitarianism is an anti-communist concept, so it shouldn't surprise you that we wouldn't receive it well. it makes you sound like a liberal from the usa, to be completely honest, which is why i immediately replied that you're not a leftist. regardless of how you feel about socialist regimes, maybe consider not using liberal concepts crafted specifically to attack socialism or at least understand why we don't like them

peace