While not an exhaustive list, these characteristics are generally considered typical of totalitarian rule:
• Rule by a single party
• Total control of the military (sometimes meaning control of the party by a military junta)
• Total control over means of communication (such as newspapers, propaganda, etc. . .)
• Police intimidation and control of subjects with even the use of terrorism as a control tactic common
• Control of the economy
Given these characteristics, it is easy to see why Mussolini’s Fascism (socialist1) and Hitler’s Nazism (also socialist2) are usually (and rightly, IMO) put forth as examples of totalitarian states, but almost any absolute monarchy and every historical example of communist and socialist states qualify as well.
“Ah!” but some say, “What about European socialist states like Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands, et al?” Yeh, no. Socialist states all exercise either de facto or de jure control of the economy, and none of those do. They depend upon government-muzzled and milked capitalism for the implementation of some socialist policies (bread and circuses), but lack the defining qualities of socialism that Ludwig von Mises correctly identified and applied to both Mussolini’s Fascism and Hitler’s Nazism in his trenchant analysis of both. Those who try to hand wave away the essentially totalitarian nature of socialism are either ignorant or disingenuous.
Socialist states are simply a sub-class of totalitarian states, just as Nazism and Fascism are sub-classes of socialist states. Proponents of socialism do not like these simple facts, and so lie about them at every opportunity.
Do note that I only pointed to a TownHall article offering “proof” that Mussolini’s Fascism was socialist, and the article offers weak proof but refers to Human Action (NOTE: pdf file), by von Mises, where in chapter XXV, et al. von Mises identifies all that’s needed to make the connection solid. *shrugs* The book’s a decent read, anyway, and well worth one’s time, IMO.