I think arguing about Putin's level of control over Russia is splitting dissidents, I mean hairs. The ability to openly murder and gaslight your opponents, even when they are in other countries, is certainly within tolerances for an "actual totalitarian dictatorship"; Putin has, and flaunts, this ability. Is he publicly directing uniformed thugs to kick down doors and execute people in the streets? Well, no, but not being able to recognize Putin's Russia as a savvy, modern, post-truth translation of that classic dictatorship pattern will be met with me rolling my eyes (and then my whole body, along with some 9mm bullets, out of an upper-storey window, which will be ruled a suicide).
"Totalitarian" implies total control - i.e. yes, the ability to direct uniform thugs to kick down doors and execute people in the streets is included in it.
Putin's Russia is authoritarian, not totalitarian. That's why political opponents are murdered by assassins, not executed by firing squads.
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.
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
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.
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)
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.
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.
Sure, but for a society to be "totalitarian" is an asymptotic climb, not a defined goal. An independent Russian businessman might find himself approached by the local mob (under the aegis of an oligarch, who is under the aegis of the Russian state) to acquire a share of his business. He can't turn to any authority for help, and if he refuses his business (or he) will be crippled. That's not total control.
Political opponents are murdered by assassins, and domestic coverage of the murder makes no bones about what happened, nor is the even truthier international coverage suppressed at all. Public execution by implication. I'm certain Putin has the functional ability to quietly kill someone; he was in the KGB. Most of the big assassinations read more like expansive threats: "look what I can get away with, and the West just wags a stern finger at me; you are not safe, enemy of mine, even in the UK".
I appreciate that words usually have fairly fixed definitions (but sometimes not so literally, aha). That said, while Putin's Russia may not be totalitarian to the standards of, say, Maoist China, I think it's pretty damn difficult, and moreso than in most other countries, to do anything that the ruling class doesn't want done. That approaches total control.
Russian businessmen being approached by the local mob was more common back in 90s (that much I know from experience, because my parents ran a small business back then, and had to deal with all that). But the country as a whole was less authoritarian than it is today.
As far as doing something that the ruling class doesn't want done - if you mean politically, there are plenty of comparable countries, such as Singapore, that are similarly considered authoritarian but not totalitarian. Totalitarianism normally means total control (or at least the possibility of it) - not just of political participation, but of all spheres of life. Russia may turn totalitarian yet - there are certainly plenty of ideologues advocating it - but it hasn't crossed that line so far.
And yes, of course it's all a spectrum. Totalitarianism itself is a small subset of the much wider authoritarian spectrum.
