4 ms·

> prohibits all opposition parties Not all opposition parties are prohibited. there are more parties in Russian parliament(6) than in US congress(2). Even afte

by 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.

by vogre 5y ago

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.