The propaganda is strong and it’s not clear to me that the veil is becoming more transparent.
In India, I recall laughing at the so called "love jihad" conspiracy theories that claimed that massive number of Muslim men are conspiring to wed hindu women to convert them to Islam. But now, this is a hot button election topic and anti-miscegenation laws are being passed and married couples are being harrassed and forcibly separated. The marital data contradicts this conspiracy but no one gives a shit.
It's worth noting that anti-semitism in nazi Germany emerged after 1920 on the basis of 2 separate absurd conspiracy theories. Jewish complicity with the allies and racial origin theory around the sunk island of Atlantis. It took only about 10-15 years for this theory to be bought by an entire nation.
People are fooled though. There are people in and outside of Russia who firmly believe the Russian narrative. (If you don't believe that, check the recent manifestations in Serbia)
Not the type of book you asked for, but i can recommend Propaganda by Edward L. Bernays. A hugely influential (series) of book(s).
> The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them. For quite six years the English admirers of Hitler contrived not to learn of the existence of Dachau and Buchenwald. And those who are loudest in denouncing the German concentration camps are often quite unaware, or only very dimly aware, that there are also concentration camps in Russia. Huge events like the Ukraine famine of 1933, involving the deaths of millions of people, have actually escaped the attention of the majority of English russophiles. Many English people have heard almost nothing about the extermination of German and Polish Jews during the present war. Their own antisemitism has caused this vast crime to bounce off their consciousness. In nationalist thought there are facts which are both true and untrue, known and unknown. A known fact may be so unbearable that it is habitually pushed aside and not allowed to enter into logical processes, or on the other hand it may enter into every calculation and yet never be admitted as a fact, even in one’s own mind.
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
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).
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.
Pretensions are part of totalitarianism.
Their borders are still pretty open, no? Just watch as they will close them down soon.
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.
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.
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!
The active and popular rebels only.
The common dissident, was not free to leave, he had to shut up and work.
A country can be non-democratic without being totalitarian.
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.
So you say, but:
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.
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?
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-ne...
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).
I'm not calling you a liar.
I also myself wasn't the one who brought up "totalitarian" but instead was just pushing back on the dismissal of it.
My impression is that there's a new fuzzy authoritarianism that Putin has developed where a government with few reliable checks on totalitarianism chooses to have a lot of democratic-theater that includes real stuff. Like a Reality TV show, it's not actually all scripted, it's not all actors, and they allow real sincere opposition to do and say things, but it's all within the directors of the show deciding how much natural stuff to allow or even encourage in order to keep up the public view of the legitimacy of their government. It's like an intentional non-totalitarianism out of an understanding of the brittleness of actual totalitarianism, and they just take care that things are controlled and limited just enough that it actually maximizes the power of the non-totalitarian government.
So, it ends up being a question of "totalitarian" for real versus "might as well be totalitarian where it counts", and I'm NOT asserting even that I'm sure Russia is even the latter, but I'm rejecting the strength of the assertions about freedom of the press and other things used as evidence of non-totalitarianism.
And anyway, I agree completely about the propaganda in the rest of the world. I have no illusions about any of that, and I don't think the U.S. or EU are really democratic. We can see quite blatantly that policies have very little correlation to overall public support but instead correlate only to the support of the wealthy.
My impression from within the country was not that it is totalitarian and scripted to maintain appearances of freedom, but rather that it is somewhere between not nearly well organized enough on one hand and trying to maintain popularity among citizenry that is to large degree independently thinking and with fresh memories of repressions of USSR on the other -- with the result being a regime that is meaningfully not totalitarian.
The recent laws may be pushing it towards the definition of totalitarianism; however, I also resist the notion that a few days are enough to radically change this type of taxonomy, absent a revolution taking place. We are yet to see how these laws are applied, whether they continue to exist for a period of time, etc. If the officially registered and licensed independent newspaper that I know of will legally cease to exist, for example, I may review my position. If we have (heavens forbid) a Tiananmen, I may review my position. If we experience the feared Internet shutdown at the initiative of Russian government, I may review my position.
Now, I had the impression that the lack of such laws before was effectively at the whim of Putin in practice. Like, the moment he felt such more-totalitarian laws were in his interest, he could have them. There's no effective checks-and-balances that would stop him. So, press freedoms and so on were at his pleasure so to speak, even though I acknowledge that they are real to a degree.
But consider https://www.thisamericanlife.org/763/the-other-mr-president for example. This is mostly old stories with minor updated intro.
> Disinformation and propaganda works differently in Putin’s Russia than it did during the Soviet Union. Instead of tamping down the opposition, the Russian government works to control the opposition.
Focus on Vladislav Surkov
> instead of tamping down the opposition like the old days, Surkov built a new system where there was opposition, but he dictated what the opposition stood for. You do not allow political parties to create their own agendas. You just write these agendas for them. … He also decided that he cannot allow any grassroot activities which would not be vetted by Kremlin. So he decided that he will create also youth movements and write agenda for them. … In 2004, Vladimir Putin decided that governors shouldn't be elected anymore. They should be appointed by him. It's a long story. But at first, every other political party besides Putin's was against the idea, genuinely against it. But then Surkov manipulated them over to his side. It helped that he controlled their funding and the number of seats they got in the Duma.… And then the parties went through this whole drawn-out public drama, which had all the trappings of democracy. The bill was submitted. There were arguments for and against it, protests around the country. People announce they've changed their minds. There were several votes. And finally, after three months, it passes. All of this, Vasily says, was scripted by Surkov's people.
So I don't independently know this to be true, but this looks to me like effective pseudo- totalitarianism-light. A government that finds they can have power by avoiding looking or acting totalitarian but which reliably can make the situation be whatever they want it to be. I don't know what to call this, but it's not the opposite of totalitarian, it's not non-totalitarian. And it seems like it can just switch to regular totalitarianism if those in power so choose it.
But following this line we might find ourselves in a precarious position where we must admit that any democracy liable to being peacefully, insidiously manipulated by a minority through various means may fit this description.
We open ourselves to an argument by an anti-west person who would say that capitalism is a pseudo-totalitarianism by that measure because the Bezoses and the top .001% lobby lawmakers and manipulate mass media (that they own) to make people believe whatever furthers .001%'s personal agenda.
I disagree with that position, thus I apply a different criteria. Whether people can think freely, whether people can protest, access free media (yes, there is no longer Twitter, but many others left), disagree with the government, etc.
Have I not been in China somewhat recently, I might not have objected. But I saw how on Beijing airport transit rail there is a social advert basically showing a caricature of the rotten, corrupt West against the goodness of communism. A screen in every car playing it on a loop. This type of blatant conditioning is simply unimaginable in Russia.
So in my eyes there is a gradient, and observing the gradient is important to the cause. Not observing it is giving in to such black-and-white unthinking that is precisely the bread and butter of totalitarianism.
---
I accept that there may be a communication objective where you want to hit a person with a strong statement to make them think. "You are living in a totalitarian country." Maybe they would be taken aback and reevaluate their life through this new lens. But I don't have the intuition that this is an effective approach. Hopefully they don't have China or North Korea to compare to.
Freedoms to think freely, protest, have free media, these things are deeply and profoundly important. But so is real economic democracy. China has neither, the U.S. has the former freedoms but a very crappy practically-absent economic democracy. By economic democracy, I don't mean dogmatic libertarian laissez-faire free markets (though that would be better than corrupt markets with regulatory capture dictated by monopolists). I mean where regular citizens have the whole combo of informed power to set economic policy rather than have it dictated to them by the elite. Stuff like participatory-budgeting.
Anyway, I'm just saying that my critique and concerns about Russia have NO connection to any defense of the West, though I will readily give credit wherever it is due for the things that are good and fair, which the West has some of.
And yes, I agree completely that just giving blunt labels is not a helpful way to discuss things with anyone. The tact we need is to be interested in people's views enough that we can describe them and have people say "that's right, that's my view" and only from there can we start discussing where and why our views differ.
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.
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.
Descend INTO? Excuse me, but what part of Russia isn't already totalitarianism?