If you do some reading on the topic, the necessary condition of the technical term of totalitarianism, as distinct from say, mere authoritarian ideas like fascism or communism, is that it is a movement that uses the nation state as a host, but whose intent is the absorption of nation states into its system of control, and that its key tactic is the dissolution of truth as a means to atomize and liquidate the individual.

"Resisting oppression" requires first that you identify as oppressed, and if you are a Daniel Dennet reader and use his (flawed but useful) model of self as an example, this very identity is the effect of language and narrative. The aim of these movements (and initially of marxism) was to create an identity ("consciousness") relative to a percieved material oppressor - that's the heavy lift, or leap of faith, and once you've convinced someone they are a victim, you can convince them of anything, because they have accepted the core axiom of the rest of the ideology, and the demagogue becomes the source of narrative truth for that identity.

You don't need to enslave people when you can just convince them they are slaves who must do what you ask to become free. It's a simple begged question and low rent street hustle. This grand deception that underpins Marx's whole system is about as sophisticated as a predatory pimp persuading a target she owes him the money he's forcing her to work for, except instead of monetary debt, he's selling you an inferior identity that you can redeem yourself by organizing and following some political huckster.

So, what do you think is more likely, that a few activists are enlightened and the rest of us live under a false consciousness of oppressive supremacy, or that a minority with an infinite will to power are selling a snake oil pseudo religion and they're no better than any other televangelists and demagogues?

Soros has not resisted totalitarianism at all, he has funded and co-opted movements against nation states as a means to subordinate and dissolve them.