4 ms·

"No free press" is a bit of an overstatement. There is still a comparatively free press in the RF -- but it's been successfully marginalized. And that's preci

"No free press" is a bit of an overstatement. There is still a comparatively free press in the RF -- but it's been successfully marginalized. And that's precisely the approach -- marginalizing dissenting voices, rather than automatically banning them (in all but extreme cases) which characterizes Putin's neototalitarian style. Because you just don't need to ban dissenting voices, when your propaganda is successful enough. And BTW, popular support for Putin really is quite genuine. To a point where he almost doesn't need to fix elections (it just makes him feel a bit "safer") or manipulate the press. This may not much much sense in the West, but it's the way things are, nonetheless.

triplesec 10y ago
Yes, I agree with your descriptions with one caveat. Being on mobile I took extreme shortcuts, so thank you for the more detailed explanation. Also, re the question of a child post, Russia was politically its historically freest in the 1990s during the Yeltsin years, and even early Putin years, until he started murdering journalists. My caveat is that the people support him only because any free media is marginalised, and most self censor in any case. Many know exactly what he is, but have given up on there being any meaningful change. Because Russia had mostly had terrible dictators and repression.
DominikR 10y ago
> which characterizes Putin's neototalitarian style First of all the RF is not totalitarian, Putin can't just do whatever he likes. If he did and people would hate him for that then he wouldn't have the power to turn a landslide defeat into a victory by fixing something. So there are real restraints on his power that are directly tied to the support he gets from the population. But even if I were to accept your characterisation of Putin ruling with a "neototalitarian style" then I'd like to know when in the history of the RF, the USSR or the Russian Empire the society was more free than today? As far as I remember it has always been a Monarchy, a dictatorship or total chaos with Mafia ruling the streets and even the government. So what exactly is "neo" about his totalitarian style when it's obviously gotten better? Russia never was a democracy by Western standards and it is highly unlikely that it will ever be one. For me as a Libertarian I'd actually desire to get rid of democracy or at least restrict government influence so much that democratic elected officials have next to no influence. That's because I don't want to be robbed by the majority that always tends to vote for laws in order to steal from those who are successful so they themselves can be lazy.
- yurish 10y ago
  But even if I were to accept your characterisation of Putin ruling with a "neototalitarian style" then I'd like to know when in the history of the RF, the USSR or the Russian Empire the society was more free than today? Yesterday. I mean in early Putin's days. Now thanks to powers inspiring "color revolutions" and "arabian springs" we have brain washing machine working non-stop. Edit: corrected formatting.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  First of all the RF is not totalitarian, Putin can't just do whatever he likes. Agreed, and by "neototalitarian" I mean something distinctly different from totalitarianism in the classical sense. It's a fuzzy term, but basically it refers to a system that attempts to maintain centralized control not, primarily, through "sledgehammer"-style coercion of classically totalitarian systems but more so through ideological and psychological means (accompanied by occasional, "surgical" acts of coercion). So it is very much key to Putin's staying power that he has an astute sense for what the popular "psyche" really wants, and for the language they want to hear. And that he definitely could not have come to the position he's in through traditional "strongman" tactics alone. I'd like to know when in the history of the RF, the USSR or the Russian Empire the society was more free than today? As far as I remember it has always been a Monarchy, a dictatorship or total chaos with Mafia ruling the streets and even the government. Post-USSR, my general understanding was that (mafia chaos aside) the 90s were comparatively a far looser time; certainly very difficult (and sometimes quite hazardous) -- but, by and large, you could still believe that Russia was at least potentially on its way to becoming a normal country. And things started to darken, and tighten gradually with Putin's first term (the various terror incidents, and the second phase of the Chechen War being major turning points); and with his third term (and finally with the intervention in Ukraine), quite precipitously so. During Soviet times, there were also periods of comparative openness (the mid 60s and early 70s being an almost golden time, to those who remember it). Yes, things were tightly controlled, but you didn't have the feeling that the state was as thoroughly corrupt as one does today; the country was certainly better off economically than it every had been; and there was an overall feeling of optimism. As opposed to the overriding sense of pessimism felt by many on the dissenting side, today.
- 10y ago
geoka9 10y ago
> To a point where he almost doesn't need to fix elections (it just makes him feel a bit "safer") or manipulate the press. He got to that position by subjugating and manipulating the media in the first place. True, he may not need to do it to win elections "now", but if he cuts the media loose he'll easily lose his popularity. Russians live and breath TV and Putin knows it.

triplesec 10y ago

Yes, I agree with your descriptions with one caveat. Being on mobile I took extreme shortcuts, so thank you for the more detailed explanation. Also, re the question of a child post, Russia was politically its historically freest in the 1990s during the Yeltsin years, and even early Putin years, until he started murdering journalists. My caveat is that the people support him only because any free media is marginalised, and most self censor in any case. Many know exactly what he is, but have given up on there being any meaningful change. Because Russia had mostly had terrible dictators and repression.

DominikR 10y ago

> which characterizes Putin's neototalitarian style First of all the RF is not totalitarian, Putin can't just do whatever he likes. If he did and people would hate him for that then he wouldn't have the power to turn a landslide defeat into a victory by fixing something. So there are real restraints on his power that are directly tied to the support he gets from the population. But even if I were to accept your characterisation of Putin ruling with a "neototalitarian style" then I'd like to know when in the history of the RF, the USSR or the Russian Empire the society was more free than today? As far as I remember it has always been a Monarchy, a dictatorship or total chaos with Mafia ruling the streets and even the government. So what exactly is "neo" about his totalitarian style when it's obviously gotten better? Russia never was a democracy by Western standards and it is highly unlikely that it will ever be one. For me as a Libertarian I'd actually desire to get rid of democracy or at least restrict government influence so much that democratic elected officials have next to no influence. That's because I don't want to be robbed by the majority that always tends to vote for laws in order to steal from those who are successful so they themselves can be lazy.

yurish 10y ago
But even if I were to accept your characterisation of Putin ruling with a "neototalitarian style" then I'd like to know when in the history of the RF, the USSR or the Russian Empire the society was more free than today? Yesterday. I mean in early Putin's days. Now thanks to powers inspiring "color revolutions" and "arabian springs" we have brain washing machine working non-stop. Edit: corrected formatting.
kafkaesq 10y ago
First of all the RF is not totalitarian, Putin can't just do whatever he likes. Agreed, and by "neototalitarian" I mean something distinctly different from totalitarianism in the classical sense. It's a fuzzy term, but basically it refers to a system that attempts to maintain centralized control not, primarily, through "sledgehammer"-style coercion of classically totalitarian systems but more so through ideological and psychological means (accompanied by occasional, "surgical" acts of coercion). So it is very much key to Putin's staying power that he has an astute sense for what the popular "psyche" really wants, and for the language they want to hear. And that he definitely could not have come to the position he's in through traditional "strongman" tactics alone. I'd like to know when in the history of the RF, the USSR or the Russian Empire the society was more free than today? As far as I remember it has always been a Monarchy, a dictatorship or total chaos with Mafia ruling the streets and even the government. Post-USSR, my general understanding was that (mafia chaos aside) the 90s were comparatively a far looser time; certainly very difficult (and sometimes quite hazardous) -- but, by and large, you could still believe that Russia was at least potentially on its way to becoming a normal country. And things started to darken, and tighten gradually with Putin's first term (the various terror incidents, and the second phase of the Chechen War being major turning points); and with his third term (and finally with the intervention in Ukraine), quite precipitously so. During Soviet times, there were also periods of comparative openness (the mid 60s and early 70s being an almost golden time, to those who remember it). Yes, things were tightly controlled, but you didn't have the feeling that the state was as thoroughly corrupt as one does today; the country was certainly better off economically than it every had been; and there was an overall feeling of optimism. As opposed to the overriding sense of pessimism felt by many on the dissenting side, today.
10y ago

geoka9 10y ago

> To a point where he almost doesn't need to fix elections (it just makes him feel a bit "safer") or manipulate the press. He got to that position by subjugating and manipulating the media in the first place. True, he may not need to do it to win elections "now", but if he cuts the media loose he'll easily lose his popularity. Russians live and breath TV and Putin knows it.