I agree that Russia isn't a quintessential example of "totalitarian". At some level, this can be just about clarifying semantics. But when I pointed out the new law criminalizing journalism that criticizes the current war, you pushed back on that. You gave an emphasis toward the other direction. So, that seemed more arguing about the nature of the situation and not just semantics.

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.

"Might as well be totalitarian where it counts" may be an OK description. I was objecting specifically to blanket statements which make a disservice to democracy through black-and-white thinking, ignoring semantic distinctions and applying double standards.

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.

That all makes sense and is a thoughtful response, thanks.

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.

Fair point indeed.

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.

Well, I happen to believe that capitalism at its worst does veer on pseudo-totalitarianism. I think the anti-West critics are mostly correct in their criticism even while they are typically wrong in their defenses/apologies for situations in Russia or China. They play a biased game where they focus on the failings elsewhere and the successes on their side instead of giving a fair critique all around.

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.