8 ms·

> It’s sad to watch Russia descend into totalitarianism. Descend INTO? Excuse me, but what part of Russia isn't already totalitarianism?

throwaway290 5y ago
- quadrangle 5y ago
  > You can publish news and analysis that denounce the government and call for it to stop the war So you say, but: https://www.npr.org/2022/03/05/1084729579/russian-law-bans-journalists-from-calling-ukraine-conflict-a-war-or-an-invasion https://www.npr.org/2022/03/05/1084729579/russian-law-bans-j... Oops, so much for being okay with publishing and protesting. It's now criminal to call it a "war" even if you don't take a position against it.
  - throwaway290 5y ago
    Does China have a law against mentioning Tiananmen? Ah yes, there is no need for it, because no one knows and those who know do not dare speak. That's what totalitarianism is. Besides, focusing on the word 'war' is a straw man. You want the discussion to refocus on it without considering whether my point would stand had the word not been used. Here it is, slightly expanded: there is independent and oppositional media that honestly criticizes the government, tirelessly points out that elections are invalid, etc. It legally operates offline and online. Is that possible with your definition of totalitarianism?
    - mechanical_bear 5y ago
      The use of “war” to describe the situation in Ukraine is not a straw man. Words mean things. How we discuss things informs our overall thoughts on the matter, this guiding our action or inaction.
      - throwaway290 5y ago
    - quadrangle 5y ago
      What's your point? That because Russia has allowed various freedoms and the severe stifling of them over the past two weeks has a lot farther it could potentially go? And therefore "totalitarian" is an unfair judgment as long as a government hasn't yet stifled all the freedoms that they could? If focusing on the word "war" is a straw-man (which it isn't), then what's with you spending this whole thread being concerned with the word "totalitarianism"? If (I assume this is a big if) we accept the reporting of many international reports over the past week or so, then your claim about independent and oppositional media operating freely/fairly/online/offline and legally is basically bullshit. The story as I understand it is that Putin long ago decided that allowing some space (with some influencing and limitations) for oppositional media was a good thing that supported his claims about the system being fair. But it was always a choice of his to allow it, a politically strategic decision. And he had ways of keeping its influence constrained. But he doesn't now feel that it's okay with the current war, so that's that. https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/vladimir-putin-s-next-war-is-being-waged-against-russia-s-independent-media/ar-AAUH0MT https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/vladimir-putin-s-ne...
      - throwaway290 5y ago
        My point is that Russia is not a totalitarian country, unless you stretch the definition of the word to accommodate your personal belief not founded in reality. You say 'allowing freedoms' as if it is not exactly what makes a difference between totalitarianism and not. You can take it for what you will and call me a liar but I know what I am talking about. Equipment seizures and office searches are a threat but then they were happening for years already, the editor in chief was jailed at least once and is basically on the run -- but the newspaper still has the license, operates and is popular in the region (well, among those who read newspapers) and its site is alive and well (hosted outside Russia, probably). I know people who work there officially and saw photos of the latest issue. I have seen democratic countries, I have seen totalitarian countries, I have seen Russia. I have no emotional attachment to Russia and it is at the very bottom of the list of where I might choose to live, but it is not totalitarian yet. Economist's Democracy Index concurs, Wikipedia's definition of totalitarianism concurs. You may be living in your own world (or a world created by the propaganda in the media you consume, which is probably weaker than Russian propaganda but still, sorry to break it to you, exists).
- geden 5y ago
  Eh? They’ve passed a law which means that if you even call the war a ‘war’ you face 15 years in jail.
  - FpUser 5y ago
    They are heading straight to totalitarianism, yes. But up until few days ago they were not there yet. They were (may be still technically are) authoritarian to a various degree.
- azinman2 5y ago
  > You can publish news and analysis that denounce the government and call for it to stop the war. You can go on the streets and protest your own government without fear of being flattened by tanks. Except you can’t. If you call it a war, you risk 15 years prison sentence. Protests must be previously approved by the government, which isn’t happening and thus why they’re arresting people.
- ben_w 5y ago
  With the caveats that I can’t make a good judgment about a foreign country just from the news, that I have no training in political science or law, and that linguistic treadmills make it easy to lose track of how strong a word is from one year to the next… One can have greater and lesser forms of a thing, and “totalitarianism” does not need to be a boolean — worse forms of it don’t need to be rendered termless by lesser forms.
  - throwaway290 5y ago
dragonwriter 5y ago
When there is more dissent, totalitarianism becomes more palpable.
starkd 5y ago
It was all somewhat veiled before. Russia has now dropped any pretentions to being anything other than a totalitarian state.
- jl6 5y ago
  I disagree on a technicality, just because I think words should mean something. They haven’t dropped pretensions. They are still pretending there is no war, pretending that everything is fine, pretending that fair elections will be held, … The propaganda is strong and it’s not clear to me that the veil is becoming more transparent.
  - Hnrobert42 5y ago
    I’ve always been fascinated by the lengths authoritarians go to legitimize their actions. When no one is fooled, why do they do it? I would be interested to read a book analyzing the value of authoritarian propaganda.
    - mpol 5y ago
      When everybody knows, everybody knows. It doesn't mean anything has to happen or change. Down here when children break something and the parents ask "Who did that?", they will often reply "It was already like that". With a bad excuse like that everybody knows the children broke it. Strangely enough, almost always the discussion comes to an immediate end with that, except the parents will have a certain smile like "I have been fooled here". There are sometimes even court cases that are hopelessly lost and this happens. The lawyer is pressured to do anything he can, and comes up with such bizarre stories, that lawyers and judge will know how the situation is.
    - alisonatwork 5y ago
      I think the idea is that it strengthens over time and helps to build a sanitized history. When a new generation of people have internalized this national story, then that can then be leveraged by those in power to justify crackdowns and explain away periods of hardship. In the case of a single party dictatorship, I think it also exists to show party members what the approved line is, which allows local authorities to operate with some degree of autonomy, as long as they can tie it back to the general narrative the leadership wants to promote. This can be used as a way of allowing some degree of variation in governance while still providing the party leadership with plausible deniability if a policy fails (or the ability to claim ownership if it succeeds).
koonsolo 5y ago
They still had some independent news, up until now. They still could access a lot of website, up until now. Their borders are still pretty open, no? Just watch as they will close them down soon.
- grishka 5y ago
  > Their borders are still pretty open, no? Some people I know are leaving (though panic is never a good thing). Some told bizarre stories of how they were questioned at the border. And yes, some were asked to unlock and hand over their phones.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    Yeah I just read some interviews with Russians fleeing to surrounding countries and they were afraid Putin had lost it and was returning to Soviet era tactics and the complete police state.
- saiya-jin 5y ago
  Yes and no. If you get too popular or too annoying, a bullet one morning will greet you on your way to work, many cases like that. Or some fabricated case and 10 years of hardcore ural prison. The borders are open all right, no reason to close them. People opposing the regime are going away, the best possible outcome for dictator. No need to waste a lot of time and manpower on finding dissent if it just disappears on their own. And so population becomes a bit more docile, ignorant or even cooperating. This was happening in former communist countries too - not everybody who spoke up against the regime went to jail. Some were just thrown to western Europe and forbidden to come back.
  - koonsolo 5y ago
    You have a weird way to tell history. People behind the iron curtain had no way to go to the west, and everybody wanted to. That is why they closed the borders. When all young ambitious people leave, your country goes even more to shit than the shit it's already in. Of course they block the borders!
im3w1l 5y ago
> Totalitarianism is a form of government and political system that prohibits all opposition parties, outlaws individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control and regulation over public and private life. It is regarded as the most extreme and complete form of authoritarianism. In totalitarian states, political power is often held by autocrats, such as dictators and absolute monarchs, who employ all-encompassing campaigns in which propaganda is broadcast by state-controlled mass media in order to control the citizenry.[2] A country can be non-democratic without being totalitarian.
- mejutoco 5y ago
  How?
  - r_hoods_ghost 5y ago
    By not being totalitarian. Totalitarianism is the extreme end of the spectrum where the party or individual attempts to control the totality of social, economic and political life. You can have non-democratic forms of government which allow significant social, economic and even political freedom, as long as it's expressed within certain bounds. Modern day China being a good example. Mao's China however was avowedly totalitarian and probably the second most extreme expression of totalitarianism there's ever been, after Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Is Putin's Russia totalitarian? Not yet, but it's certainly heading that way.
    - mejutoco 5y ago
      It seems like a valid distinction, but I do not agree with it. If what you are doing does not bother the government you may be able to say "see, it is not that bad, they are not telling me what to do in the totality of social, economic and political life"; if, on the other side, you do something they disagree with, the distinction between totalitarism and non-democracy disappears. In other words, to me the difference between being able to control and attempt to control are not that different. If it is possible, eventually somebody will attempt it. This is where checks and controls, division of power, etc. are useful.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
They still have some personal freedom to do things. I think that will start changing soon as Russia (well Putin) has decided to become and International pariah and return to Soviet era tactics and politics. I'm not sure Putin even cares how much of the population supports him any longer. I think he is rather fond of fear tactics and the old Soviet police state where neighbors spied on and reported on neighbors.

throwaway290 5y ago

quadrangle 5y ago
> You can publish news and analysis that denounce the government and call for it to stop the war So you say, but: https://www.npr.org/2022/03/05/1084729579/russian-law-bans-journalists-from-calling-ukraine-conflict-a-war-or-an-invasion https://www.npr.org/2022/03/05/1084729579/russian-law-bans-j... Oops, so much for being okay with publishing and protesting. It's now criminal to call it a "war" even if you don't take a position against it.
- throwaway290 5y ago
  Does China have a law against mentioning Tiananmen? Ah yes, there is no need for it, because no one knows and those who know do not dare speak. That's what totalitarianism is. Besides, focusing on the word 'war' is a straw man. You want the discussion to refocus on it without considering whether my point would stand had the word not been used. Here it is, slightly expanded: there is independent and oppositional media that honestly criticizes the government, tirelessly points out that elections are invalid, etc. It legally operates offline and online. Is that possible with your definition of totalitarianism?
  - mechanical_bear 5y ago
    The use of “war” to describe the situation in Ukraine is not a straw man. Words mean things. How we discuss things informs our overall thoughts on the matter, this guiding our action or inaction.
    - throwaway290 5y ago
  - quadrangle 5y ago
    What's your point? That because Russia has allowed various freedoms and the severe stifling of them over the past two weeks has a lot farther it could potentially go? And therefore "totalitarian" is an unfair judgment as long as a government hasn't yet stifled all the freedoms that they could? If focusing on the word "war" is a straw-man (which it isn't), then what's with you spending this whole thread being concerned with the word "totalitarianism"? If (I assume this is a big if) we accept the reporting of many international reports over the past week or so, then your claim about independent and oppositional media operating freely/fairly/online/offline and legally is basically bullshit. The story as I understand it is that Putin long ago decided that allowing some space (with some influencing and limitations) for oppositional media was a good thing that supported his claims about the system being fair. But it was always a choice of his to allow it, a politically strategic decision. And he had ways of keeping its influence constrained. But he doesn't now feel that it's okay with the current war, so that's that. https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/vladimir-putin-s-next-war-is-being-waged-against-russia-s-independent-media/ar-AAUH0MT https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/vladimir-putin-s-ne...
    - throwaway290 5y ago
      My point is that Russia is not a totalitarian country, unless you stretch the definition of the word to accommodate your personal belief not founded in reality. You say 'allowing freedoms' as if it is not exactly what makes a difference between totalitarianism and not. You can take it for what you will and call me a liar but I know what I am talking about. Equipment seizures and office searches are a threat but then they were happening for years already, the editor in chief was jailed at least once and is basically on the run -- but the newspaper still has the license, operates and is popular in the region (well, among those who read newspapers) and its site is alive and well (hosted outside Russia, probably). I know people who work there officially and saw photos of the latest issue. I have seen democratic countries, I have seen totalitarian countries, I have seen Russia. I have no emotional attachment to Russia and it is at the very bottom of the list of where I might choose to live, but it is not totalitarian yet. Economist's Democracy Index concurs, Wikipedia's definition of totalitarianism concurs. You may be living in your own world (or a world created by the propaganda in the media you consume, which is probably weaker than Russian propaganda but still, sorry to break it to you, exists).
geden 5y ago
Eh? They’ve passed a law which means that if you even call the war a ‘war’ you face 15 years in jail.
- FpUser 5y ago
  They are heading straight to totalitarianism, yes. But up until few days ago they were not there yet. They were (may be still technically are) authoritarian to a various degree.
azinman2 5y ago
> You can publish news and analysis that denounce the government and call for it to stop the war. You can go on the streets and protest your own government without fear of being flattened by tanks. Except you can’t. If you call it a war, you risk 15 years prison sentence. Protests must be previously approved by the government, which isn’t happening and thus why they’re arresting people.
ben_w 5y ago
With the caveats that I can’t make a good judgment about a foreign country just from the news, that I have no training in political science or law, and that linguistic treadmills make it easy to lose track of how strong a word is from one year to the next… One can have greater and lesser forms of a thing, and “totalitarianism” does not need to be a boolean — worse forms of it don’t need to be rendered termless by lesser forms.
- throwaway290 5y ago

dragonwriter 5y ago

When there is more dissent, totalitarianism becomes more palpable.

starkd 5y ago

It was all somewhat veiled before. Russia has now dropped any pretentions to being anything other than a totalitarian state.

jl6 5y ago
I disagree on a technicality, just because I think words should mean something. They haven’t dropped pretensions. They are still pretending there is no war, pretending that everything is fine, pretending that fair elections will be held, … The propaganda is strong and it’s not clear to me that the veil is becoming more transparent.
- Hnrobert42 5y ago
  I’ve always been fascinated by the lengths authoritarians go to legitimize their actions. When no one is fooled, why do they do it? I would be interested to read a book analyzing the value of authoritarian propaganda.
  - mpol 5y ago
    When everybody knows, everybody knows. It doesn't mean anything has to happen or change. Down here when children break something and the parents ask "Who did that?", they will often reply "It was already like that". With a bad excuse like that everybody knows the children broke it. Strangely enough, almost always the discussion comes to an immediate end with that, except the parents will have a certain smile like "I have been fooled here". There are sometimes even court cases that are hopelessly lost and this happens. The lawyer is pressured to do anything he can, and comes up with such bizarre stories, that lawyers and judge will know how the situation is.
  - alisonatwork 5y ago
    I think the idea is that it strengthens over time and helps to build a sanitized history. When a new generation of people have internalized this national story, then that can then be leveraged by those in power to justify crackdowns and explain away periods of hardship. In the case of a single party dictatorship, I think it also exists to show party members what the approved line is, which allows local authorities to operate with some degree of autonomy, as long as they can tie it back to the general narrative the leadership wants to promote. This can be used as a way of allowing some degree of variation in governance while still providing the party leadership with plausible deniability if a policy fails (or the ability to claim ownership if it succeeds).

koonsolo 5y ago

They still had some independent news, up until now. They still could access a lot of website, up until now. Their borders are still pretty open, no? Just watch as they will close them down soon.

grishka 5y ago
> Their borders are still pretty open, no? Some people I know are leaving (though panic is never a good thing). Some told bizarre stories of how they were questioned at the border. And yes, some were asked to unlock and hand over their phones.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Yeah I just read some interviews with Russians fleeing to surrounding countries and they were afraid Putin had lost it and was returning to Soviet era tactics and the complete police state.
saiya-jin 5y ago
Yes and no. If you get too popular or too annoying, a bullet one morning will greet you on your way to work, many cases like that. Or some fabricated case and 10 years of hardcore ural prison. The borders are open all right, no reason to close them. People opposing the regime are going away, the best possible outcome for dictator. No need to waste a lot of time and manpower on finding dissent if it just disappears on their own. And so population becomes a bit more docile, ignorant or even cooperating. This was happening in former communist countries too - not everybody who spoke up against the regime went to jail. Some were just thrown to western Europe and forbidden to come back.
- koonsolo 5y ago
  You have a weird way to tell history. People behind the iron curtain had no way to go to the west, and everybody wanted to. That is why they closed the borders. When all young ambitious people leave, your country goes even more to shit than the shit it's already in. Of course they block the borders!

im3w1l 5y ago

> Totalitarianism is a form of government and political system that prohibits all opposition parties, outlaws individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control and regulation over public and private life. It is regarded as the most extreme and complete form of authoritarianism. In totalitarian states, political power is often held by autocrats, such as dictators and absolute monarchs, who employ all-encompassing campaigns in which propaganda is broadcast by state-controlled mass media in order to control the citizenry.[2] A country can be non-democratic without being totalitarian.

mejutoco 5y ago
How?
- r_hoods_ghost 5y ago
  By not being totalitarian. Totalitarianism is the extreme end of the spectrum where the party or individual attempts to control the totality of social, economic and political life. You can have non-democratic forms of government which allow significant social, economic and even political freedom, as long as it's expressed within certain bounds. Modern day China being a good example. Mao's China however was avowedly totalitarian and probably the second most extreme expression of totalitarianism there's ever been, after Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Is Putin's Russia totalitarian? Not yet, but it's certainly heading that way.
  - mejutoco 5y ago
    It seems like a valid distinction, but I do not agree with it. If what you are doing does not bother the government you may be able to say "see, it is not that bad, they are not telling me what to do in the totality of social, economic and political life"; if, on the other side, you do something they disagree with, the distinction between totalitarism and non-democracy disappears. In other words, to me the difference between being able to control and attempt to control are not that different. If it is possible, eventually somebody will attempt it. This is where checks and controls, division of power, etc. are useful.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

They still have some personal freedom to do things. I think that will start changing soon as Russia (well Putin) has decided to become and International pariah and return to Soviet era tactics and politics. I'm not sure Putin even cares how much of the population supports him any longer. I think he is rather fond of fear tactics and the old Soviet police state where neighbors spied on and reported on neighbors.