5 ms·

Can you show a quote from somewhere, where "totalitarian" would imply total control? Wikipedia's description of "Totalitarianism" matches state of things in Rus

Can you show a quote from somewhere, where "totalitarian" would imply total control? Wikipedia's description of "Totalitarianism" matches state of things in Russia exactly: - prohibits all opposition parties // check - outlaws individual opposition to the state // check - extremely high degree of control over public life // check - private life // that maybe not, but I am not sure what that means - political power is often held by autocrats // check - propaganda is broadcast by state-controlled mass media in order to control the citizenry // check So the only thing missing is "private life", where I simply can't claim it because I don't understand the requirement.

vogre 5y ago
> prohibits all opposition parties Not all opposition parties are prohibited. there are more parties in Russian parliament(6) than in US congress(2). Even after this year elections there will probably be 3+ parties in parliament. > outlaws individual opposition to the state it's not really outlawed still, but yes, we are very close to it >extremely high degree of control over public life no. There are very chaotic attempts to control public life, but they are not very systemic. > political power is often held by autocrats This sentence is like "democracy is when political power is held by democrats" > propaganda is broadcast by state-controlled mass media in order to control the citizenry check for every country in the world
- lostmsu 5y ago
  > Not all opposition parties are prohibited. De-facto they are all prohibited, as rigged elections means their vote in the parliament has no bearing. > it's not really outlawed still, but yes, we are very close to it They just did exactly that by making Navalny's org "terrorist" thereby outlawing all individual supporters. And before that by banning underspecified forms of critique in the Internet. > they are not very systemic Mandatory religious education (with barely accessible opt-out). Outlawing specific groups from advocating their political views (like "gay propaganda"). This is a very "systemic" pushing of certain values by authoritarian means. If you do not consider it "systemic", please, define "systemic". > This sentence is like "democracy is when political power is held by democrats" It does not matter what it is like. We are doing a "totalitarianism" test and this checks. > check for every country in the world No, it is not. Most of Russian mass-media is owned directly or indirectly by the government. The ones that are not owned are heavily censored. In the rest of the world many governments do not own or censor media. For instance, US government owns just a handful of media companies, which are not that popular in the US.
unrequitedlove 5y ago
Totalitarian regimes demand total participation (hence the “total” part). In Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany you either participated in the Komsomol, voted for the right candidate, studied marxism/whatever the nazi equivalent was, publicly expressed loyalist opinions etc, or you were considered a malicious actor. Authoritarian regimes demand compliance. In modern Russia no one really cares what you think unless you’re some sort of an activist or a state employee. Meaning, regular people are generally left to be, can de-facto and de-jure think and say whatever they wish, and they only get messed with if they are in the way of power or in position of power. Totalitarian regimes resemble cults, authoritarian regimes resemble corporations (and many corporations are, in fact, authoritarian). A regime can be authoritarian, but not totalitarian (think Principate Rome) and in some case can be totalitarian, but not authoritarian (think a democracy ran by fanatical Puritans)
- lostmsu 5y ago
  This is all great, but let's stick to definitions when discussing if a country matches one or not. Either disagree with the definition and give your alternative, or disagree with checkpoints in the current one.
  - unrequitedlove 5y ago
    Let’s. As outlined above, totalitarian regimes strive to control your private life while authoritarian regimes generally do not. Since you wrote that the difference is unclear to you, I thought I’d explain it.
    - lostmsu 5y ago
      So what is "control of private life"?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

vogre 5y ago

> prohibits all opposition parties Not all opposition parties are prohibited. there are more parties in Russian parliament(6) than in US congress(2). Even after this year elections there will probably be 3+ parties in parliament. > outlaws individual opposition to the state it's not really outlawed still, but yes, we are very close to it >extremely high degree of control over public life no. There are very chaotic attempts to control public life, but they are not very systemic. > political power is often held by autocrats This sentence is like "democracy is when political power is held by democrats" > propaganda is broadcast by state-controlled mass media in order to control the citizenry check for every country in the world

lostmsu 5y ago
> Not all opposition parties are prohibited. De-facto they are all prohibited, as rigged elections means their vote in the parliament has no bearing. > it's not really outlawed still, but yes, we are very close to it They just did exactly that by making Navalny's org "terrorist" thereby outlawing all individual supporters. And before that by banning underspecified forms of critique in the Internet. > they are not very systemic Mandatory religious education (with barely accessible opt-out). Outlawing specific groups from advocating their political views (like "gay propaganda"). This is a very "systemic" pushing of certain values by authoritarian means. If you do not consider it "systemic", please, define "systemic". > This sentence is like "democracy is when political power is held by democrats" It does not matter what it is like. We are doing a "totalitarianism" test and this checks. > check for every country in the world No, it is not. Most of Russian mass-media is owned directly or indirectly by the government. The ones that are not owned are heavily censored. In the rest of the world many governments do not own or censor media. For instance, US government owns just a handful of media companies, which are not that popular in the US.

unrequitedlove 5y ago

Totalitarian regimes demand total participation (hence the “total” part). In Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany you either participated in the Komsomol, voted for the right candidate, studied marxism/whatever the nazi equivalent was, publicly expressed loyalist opinions etc, or you were considered a malicious actor. Authoritarian regimes demand compliance. In modern Russia no one really cares what you think unless you’re some sort of an activist or a state employee. Meaning, regular people are generally left to be, can de-facto and de-jure think and say whatever they wish, and they only get messed with if they are in the way of power or in position of power. Totalitarian regimes resemble cults, authoritarian regimes resemble corporations (and many corporations are, in fact, authoritarian). A regime can be authoritarian, but not totalitarian (think Principate Rome) and in some case can be totalitarian, but not authoritarian (think a democracy ran by fanatical Puritans)

lostmsu 5y ago
This is all great, but let's stick to definitions when discussing if a country matches one or not. Either disagree with the definition and give your alternative, or disagree with checkpoints in the current one.
- unrequitedlove 5y ago
  Let’s. As outlined above, totalitarian regimes strive to control your private life while authoritarian regimes generally do not. Since you wrote that the difference is unclear to you, I thought I’d explain it.
  - lostmsu 5y ago
    So what is "control of private life"?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]