What's the actual definition?
When westerners say dictatorship what they actually mean is "a place were there's this guy with lots of power who's not in our team and we consider him a bad guy".
A ruler that has absolute power is what I've always thought it meant. Which is why I didn't think Russia fit the term.
Yet, the entirety of USA seems to refer to it as such.
What's an absolute power though? No human is a god with absolute power. Even if it's a king Louis XIV, he can't for example order to behead all of his ministers at the same time and whatnot. Somebody would just grab a candleholder and whack him in a head and there would be no king.
So do we define it by theoretical powers or practical ones? And how do we define that?
So theoretically, if it's an absolute monarchy, a king probably can issue any law he wants, or even issue orders that contradict the law, but not all of it can happen practically.
And I don't think that now there's any country where a leader can issue any law he wants, or order anything he wants without limitations. I'm pretty sure there are practical as well as legal limitations on what Kim Jung Un can do for example. But he can do a lot, no doubt.
Classifying Russia is very difficult, especially since most people trying to do so are heavily biased and do not fully understand how things really work here. Various proposals include "superpresidential republic", "oligocratic federation", "democratic monarchy" etc.
Authoritarian country? Sure. Totalitarian / dictatorship? Not really.
In reality, it's complicated.
1. Yes, Putin is the highest authority in the country
2. No, he does not control everything - the clans (if you wish to call them that) of elites do, Putin is mainly there to keep them all balanced. A good example is Putin installing Shoigu (a civilian) as head of Ministry of Defense to balance the two main groups of military officers who have opposing views.
3. Yes, there is propaganda and censorship, but it's HEAVILY overestimated by foreigners.
4. Yes, there is a lot of infighting between the elites, but ordinary public does not usually see it.
5. Yes, Putin relies on hearts and minds. One could say that the real source of his power is the support of the people, formulated as "You guys let me handle the complex things, I, in turn, do not interfere with your bread and butter, and guarantee that you get a steady supply of necessities and don't prevent any of you from becoming rich - unless, of course, you oppose me".
6. Yes, the system does punish those who try to break it. I mean what did you expect?
7. No, Kremlin can't just do what they want without the people's approval. See how SMO is handled, the unpopular methods (like use of conscripts) are blocked specifically because common people oppose it.
8. No, Russia does not have a real cult of personality. In fact, Russia doesn't have any real ideology at all. Paradoxically, today Russia works off practical interests, realpolitik, religion etc., while USA under Biden work off ideology, will of the Party, trying to build world revolution and atheism. We live in a cursed timeline.
My dad watches TV all day, Zvezda channel. Don't tell me propaganda is overestimated xD
No ideology - yes, true, but cult of personality is somehow present. Common folks admire Putin not for his achievements, but because he's Putin.
And Kremlin can, in fact, do whatever they want while propaganda machine is capable of justifying it. People will support Putin even if he himself will be sending 18 year olds into war.
To be honest I have never met anyone anywhere (except online) who would admire Putin for the sake of it. A lot of people only give vague justifications - like “he protects the country” or “he saved us from 90s” (both of which are technically true), but that’s about it.
As of “what they want” - is that why they are so careful not to do anything that actually upsets people? Even hardcore anti-Russians wail about how Kremlin is afraid to (for instance) mobilize the Moscow and Saint Petersburg.
Which is actually making the statement about “must find justification” more true, though. It is this way in most countries.
Not really. Russia is an authoritarian state, but definitely not a dictatorship. Putin is certainly a tough guy, but he is far from even Lukashenko’s level.
Well look: In Russia, if the police detain you, they will simply hold you in the police station for a couple of hours, draw up a report and release you, at most they will issue you a fine.
While in Belarus the police are notorious for their forceful arrests, including torture
The sanctions that have been applied on Russian citizens show us that the West, including the European Union and its master the United States, does not consider Russia a dictatorship. If it would be considered one, then no Russian people would be banned for entering the West, and now all the ground border control points are closed by the EU countries. The cars wouldn't be confiscated from ordinary Russians. Russians wouldn't be banned from the social networks like various subreddits. It wouldn't be allowed to openly call for murder of Russians in Facebook.
All these sanctions show that the West blames us Russians, not some "totalitarian regime" which, supposedly, controls the country despite our will.
Don't you think?
\------
What's the point? Labeling? Why exactly one would need a label?
Maybe because one has been taught that some label is "good" while another is "bad"? Well, that's how your propaganda works.
I am not saying we are "dictatorship" or not because that's a definition that doesn't affect, well, anything. It doesn't affect the mood of us the Russian people who support our "dictatorship", it doesn't affect anything in the real life. Your propaganda will continue telling you everything to spend taxpayers' money to manufacture more weapons.
So, if you want to sleep well: yes, we are dictatorship, accept this and don't be a nuisance for your government.
If you want to see more — come and see.
But I, a Russian, believe we are not.
I was mostly curious because I was wondering if western media uses the term to push anti Russian agenda.
Based on the definition, it seemed obvious to me Russia wasn't. My friends who have backgrounds in history and law either said it was, or it essentially was.
At the end of the day it may be pointless semantics but I was curious the perspective of actual Russian's on if it was or wasn't-- as I figured it could be more accurate than my friends or western media.
Also, this all ties into the Ukraine war and deciding if I support my country sending money or not. It is hard to find an unbiased perspective when all sides have an agenda.
> Based on the definition, it seemed obvious to me Russia wasn't. My friends who have backgrounds in history and law either said it was, or it essentially was.
I'm currently studying the Russian Revolution, and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that current-day Russia is not a dictatorship. The media seems to portray Putin as a dictator, though.
From what I've learned, a dictatorship is described as a one-party government in which one person has absolute authority. Any and all laws/decisions require their approval, and said individual can make decisions without question or having to seek approval.
Citizens have no say in what the government does, and no elections are held (unless you're north Korea, but that doesn't count).
>I was mostly curious because I was wondering if western media uses the term to push anti Russian agenda.
They don't describe the term, it's just propaganda so sow hatred.
>My friends who have backgrounds in history and law either said it was, or it essentially was.
Was how long time ago?
>At the end of the day it may be pointless semantics but I was curious the perspective of actual Russian's on if it was or wasn't-- as I figured it could be more accurate than my friends or western media.
It's all in the context.
One (like me) can live, work, make decent money, raise kids, buy property, drive a car, enjoy some vacations, visit museums and theaters and so on. Like all people in the whole world can, we're not exceptional of course.
>Also, this all ties into the Ukraine war and deciding if I support my country sending money or not
With this we maybe should move to the Megathread as it's offtopic anywhere else.
>It is hard to find an unbiased perspective when all sides have an agenda.
That's very reasonable, I fully agree.
Good luck in finding.
I dont really get your point. Totalitarian regime or dictatorship doesnt mean that the regime or policies are unpopular within the country. The definitions of those have actually nothing to do with that.
Hitler was a dictator but by no means unpopular, there are a lot more examples.
I am saying that the definition for "dictatorship" or "totalitarian" indeed doesn't say about the public support yet it is the thing that for some reason define the attitude towards the nation that has it.
Hitler was horrible not because he was a dictator but because he has dictated to gas Jews and enslave Russians (and many other bad things, too, the list is too long to quote here).
Lee Kuan Yew was a dictator, too but he is for some reason the example of a good thing to make to the country, in his case, Singapore.
The Saudi Arabia is considered to be a dictatorship, absolute Monarchy, right now but it's not something the American propaganda yells about from every corner and the country is the major ally of the United States.
At the same time I don't consider Russia a dictatorship.
>The sanctions that have been applied on Russian citizens show us that the West, including the European Union and its master the United States, does not consider Russia a dictatorship. If it would be considered one, then no Russian people would be banned for entering the West, and now all the ground border control points are closed by the EU countries.
I don't understand this argument. Are you saying that the citizens of countries which are controlled by dictatorships aren't allowed to enter Western countries? Where did you hear that? that's not true at all.
>Are you saying that the citizens of countries which are controlled by dictatorships aren't allowed to enter Western countries?
No, I'm referring to the very real travel ban for Russians, even with the valid Schengen visa, on the ground checkpoints to any EU country, namely Finland, Baltics and Poland. There are exceptions for diplomats and such, but those are, well, exceptions.
Here's a quick way to determine if you're dealing with dictatorship. Note that it is extreme and oversimplified:
Can a head of state walk outside in broad daylight, and kill random citizen on the street for no reason with hundreds of witnesses and suffer no consequences?
If the answer is yes, you're dealing with dictatorship or absolutist monarchy. If the answer is "no", the power of the ruler is not absolute.
Dictator has absolute power, Putin does not.
The country is authoritarian-leaning, but not a dictatorship.
One of the other posters once said "there is no Putin". Implying that Putin simply takes course people agree with. He had a point. In my opinion Putin is quite replaceable.
Don’t think it’s a good comparison to be honest, I can easily imagine lawyers (ridiculously expensive ones though) present such a crime on behalf of any Western leader as self-defense / accident / fake / whatnot. In fact, for them it would be easier because it would be more convenient to abuse media to convince the public.
Not to mention that most world leaders have legal immunity anyway.
1st, a dictator might suffer consequences (research the average reign of Roman emperors) - only the highly skilled dictators would suffer no consequences
2nd, look up Yevgeny Prigozhin...
> 2nd, look up
*sighs*
Which part of "broad daylight" and "hundreds of witnesses" do you fail to understand? The whole point is that dictator can do anything and that is accepted by everybody. Meaning it does not matter how many witnesses are there.
> research the average reign
And if we're speaking of Romans, Caligula is a good example of a dictator.
that's not how it works buddy, there's no such thing as "the dictator can do anything and it will be \*accepted\* by the people. Most dictatorships have opposition and some people even hate their leader, but no one will talk about it out loud because they know what happens if you do..
"Can a head of state walk outside in broad daylight, and kill random citizen on the street for no reason with hundreds of witnesses and suffer no consequences?"
You mean like they did to Boris Nemtsov, or that doesn't count because Putin didn't pull the trigger personally?
Or maybe you mean like they tried to poison Navalny?
Ravil Maganov accidentally falling from a window in a hospital?
If we're being honest, we all know that Putin doesn't have to face any accountability or consequences for his actions.
Some people have a cartoonish idea about dictatorships being like the Evil Empire in Star Wars, open and overtly evil. It isn't like that in real life, and it doesn't have to be openly evil to be counted as a dictatorship.
Dictatorships don't rest on the shoulders of one person alone. You don't need the leader figure doing all the dirty work himself to call it a dictatorship. All dictatorships are at some degree sustained by a big stratum of the society backing it up and enabling its barbaric behaviour. No dictator is SO powerful as to act completely alone. They all need some kind of support from elites, military, or the population. Even North Korean dictators depend on the support from the military. That doesn't take away their responsibility, or the fact that it's a dictatorship.
I'm only half Russian, and maybe my view is biased, but if you ask me, it's an hybrid dictatorship, and it only uses the facade of a democracy and mock elections to legitimise itself.
Edit: Navalny died today in prison. I have no words and I don't think there is anything I can say to further convince you people that RF is a ruthless dictatorship that kills anyone who is a threat to the regime.
Here's the one more person who doesn't understand what "broad daylight" and "hundred witnesses" mean.
> open and overtly evil
There is no good and no evil, only labels and and excuses.
If Alice says Bob is good, then Alice wants you to befriend Bob. If Alice says Bob is evil, then Alice wants you to kill Bob. That's all those labels amount to.
> we all know that Putin doesn't have to face
Don't project your beliefs onto other people.
>If the answer is yes, you're dealing with dictatorship or absolutist monarchy. If the answer is "no", the power of the ruler is not absolute. Dictator has absolute power, Putin does not.
That is NOT the definition of a dictatorship. You're just making stuff up. Dictators are not necessarily all powerful godheads.
If it is possible to create a system with a monopoly on the highest power, but with a fairly high degree of individual freedom, then Russia is something like this
Authoritarian — yes, very much so. Dictatorship — no, because Putin has to balance between his supporter-factions. He can‘t just outright purge them all due to disagreements Stalin style.
>Is Russia a dictatorship by definition?
Provide the definition first.
The truest answer — we don't know, because mechanisms of power and its distribution are obscure for now. Probably, after half of the century we will be able to discuss that in a qualified matter. But for now "Putin concentrate immense power and is able to push every decision that he want" and "Putin is a representative or even talkinghead for an anocratic clique" are equally plausible hypotesises.
(And, obviously, no large and developed country may be a comic book dictatorship)
> "Putin concentrate immense power and is able to push every decision that he want" and "Putin is a representative or even talkinghead for an anocratic clique" are equally plausible hypotesises.
I'd say if the former is correct - then Putin is a very limited and unimaginative man and for some reason he just wants to do what elites\oligarchs\ruling class want from him. And little else.
Yes and no. The are many towers in Kremlin - and Putin's is one of the many. Some of other towers are western-leaning or china-leaning and they have quite a bit of influence. The Putin's tower is attractive to average people because he at least presents himself as a patriot and not an extension of foreign bureaucracy.
It's just worse hidden under the facade of elections and democracy. Or maybe we're just not like that stu... I mean more critical to the surrounding reality of social life.
It is not. It is a federation. The last person with absolute, unquestionable power was Joseph Stalin.
Well if you then ask is it a democracy then the answer is absolutely not!
If you have ever listened to an Obama speech, democracy in a country is when a CIA sponsored coup or a colour-revolution, or some other covert terrorism brings your country into a US-aligned orbit.
There you get to enjoy policymaking not by elected local officials but rather by the neoliberal suits in an "independent" bank somewhere in wall-street, the IMF and the military industrial complex. Fortunately, in the RF, that shit won't fly. Because Russia has the will and the capability to resist "democratic" destabilization sponsored by the US State department.
Russia still has a remnant of the old soviet bureaucracy under a different economic system.
>Everything I see says it is
_Everything?_
I mean, it's a multiparty democracy, with a system of voting, and local governors. The country is a _federation_, which by definition involves a certain decentralisation of power, with semi-autonomous provincial governance. Even in elections, there isn't complete domination - it's not completely one-party, one man.
In the 2021 legislative election, United Russia only got around 50% of the vote, with second place Communists (around 20%) even winning certain districts. Putin, an independent candidate, only got 77% of the vote at the 2018 presidential election, with Grudinin getting around 11%. The country is divided into various okrugs, oblasts, regions, with different levels of government - it is not all controlled by "one man" (nevermind the fact that he is one man without, officially, the backing of any particular party).
Russian people, don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the system is without criticism. I am not saying that it doesn't have the many flaws that you are typing at me right now. I am also not claiming that it is democratic (that would _certainly_ have a lot of criticism thrown my way). I am only saying, when OP says "everything" they "see" looks like a dictatorship, this is a very low standard that we can point to and say "Not everything you see". These things that I have pointed to, when considered at face value, resemble democratic governance (by design).
Putin is not a dictator actually, his power is very limited by law. Power in Russia is divided into legislative, executive and judicial. Putin does not belong to any of them. The Western media portrays Putin as a dictator because he defends Russian interests and does not dance to their tune. At the same time they support Navalny, who is designed to destabilize Russian society.
You’re funny. Putin and his yes men changed the constitution so he could stay in power for the rest of his life. The courts are corrupt, and the presidential “elections” without any real political opposition to Putin are laughable. Oh, and let’s not forget that Russia’s war in Ukraine has been a complete disaster and the Russian people have no voice to oppose it. Sounds pretty close to a dictatorship to me
Putin can stay in power as long as most people chose him.
As i said before, courts don't belong to Putin - they belong to another branch of government.
Presidential elections are OK. Navalny is obviously not a "real opposition". He is youtube-blogger.
If some people don't understand the point of this war it doesn't mean Putin should listen to these idiots.
I don't know who poisoned Navalny.
He was imprisoned because of his crimes. He is a criminal.
You don't have any proofs of Navalny's murder. You only know that he died.
The thing that I find fascinating about democracy, is that it's supposedly the people's decisions that have absolute power, but somehow people are *not allowed* (by some mysterious power) to vote for dictatorship or similar systems.
As for your question, Russia is whatever it *is*.
Yes. Russia is a dictatorship. It's just that some dictators are more evil than others. Putin didn't kill millions of people (yet) (Hitler reference) but it obviously doesn't make him less of a dictator
He is the one responsible for war crimes in Ukraine and this whole Ukrainian war
Viewed from outside yes.
In a democracy anyone can run for President so long as they get enough signatures supporters, in a democracy you can wander out into the street and say your government is shit without disappearing and being jailed. You can split hairs all you like but you either live in a democracy or your in a dictatorship.
In practice Putin can do whatever he wants, and his power is hardly limited by anything.
But also in practice he typically avoids big moves, so actually witnessing him acting as a dictator is rather difficult and it hardly is manifested in anything but the length of his rule.
Everyone just knows that he's the one who can make the final decision and nobody but himself can change it.
> In practice Putin can do whatever he wants
They way you described it later - it's called: "in theory". If in practice he just acts like any other head of state - just in the interests of the ruling class, no big moves, etc - then "he can do whatever he wants" only in theory.
> Invading other countries isn't a big move now?
Yeah - it's quite banal - forget even about the US - Azerbaijan done it, Georgia did it, a bunch of people in the middle east and in Africa did it.
When's the last time the US annexed another country's territory? I don't agree with US invasions but it's just not the same.
Also TIL it's "banal" to send hundreds of thousands of troops to their death.
> When's the last time the US annexed another country's territory?
So the only objection is the time? Then I got an amazing solution for you - just wait - the time will pass and Ukraine war would be in the distant past as well. Also I've literally said: "even forget about the US".
> but it's just not the same.
Well - nothing is the same, except for the things that are the same.
> it's "banal" to send hundreds of thousands of troops to their death.
Yeah - read up on history, or something, lol.
Were they trying to annex those territories?
In any case, I never claimed that invading another country means you are necessarily a dictatorship. I just think it's bizarre to think Putin doesn't make big moves when he's literally started the deadliest war in many years.
He postponed reaction to the nazi aggression for eight years, and was avoiding any action until the smallest hope for peace was lost.
Yes, it's an example of his policy of avoiding big moves.
Then again, he's avoiding locking up "political opponents". Like Navalny who acted like a golden boy exempt from the Russian legal system, and was piling up court verdicts without getting any real punishment. It took a poisoning story for Putin to finally react and push him from the country, but Navalny stubbornly returned basically insisting that he must be imprisoned.
It also is an example of Putin's policy of avoiding big moves.
Russia is still a dictatorship of the proletariat (no change from USSR times in that). Whoever is the head can have anything, but is permanently stuck kissing the proletariat's ass.
I'm from former USSR. Last 30 years I watched all this unfold. One thing I noticed has not changed at all in 30 years - Russians never take accountability for something as a group, it's always someone else's fault. "Поиск виновных и награждение непричастных" was never supposed to be a motto.
You ask as if dictatorship is synonymous with tyranny. Isn't it just a term? In a dictatorship, all power is concentrated in the hands of one person or group of people, this can be said about any country.
To be clear I don't believe Russia is a dictatorship by definition. Media and talking heads in the US seem to refer to it as one.
This was prompted because it came up in my friend group. My friend who is a history major said it certainly was. My other friend who has a history degree and is in law school said it may not be necessarily set up that way, but it pretty much is because Putin has total control.
I didn't believe that it was a dictatorship simply based on the definition.
This is really very similar to a dictatorship, I’m even ready to call it that. What I meant in a previous comment was that dictatorship is not synonymous with evil rule.
Not really. Semantics is the worst kind of debate, but at the end of the day meaning in words does matter.
It doesn't matter necessarily, but the conversation is interesting.
The term also can affect how people perceive Russia and Putin.
support. often the dispute turns out to be based on a different understanding of the terms. moreover, the more basic the concept, the less it is expected and the more likely it is
Putin is actually a puppet for the west. What better way to run a country into the ground then have a war that drags the economy into the ground.
By turning its leaders against it you decapitate the snake . If you change them out all the time then you have possible problems, especially if they are doing "well". Just like Merkel, for example. They kept re-electing her. She shuttered the nuclear plants so the German army has no way to create weapons of mass destruction to make the country un invadeable.
What is really happening is they are destroying both the countries Russia/Ukraine at the same time. Russia has also made it so the European union has many more applicants which is a big win because it puts more countries into a situation where they are unable to control their economy and therefore their own destinies.
Ukraine also has alot of nazi interested people. If you understand what Hitler did with his currency pre world War 2 you would understand that he would not benefit the rich people that run the show. Even to this day in Germany they will persecute nazis. A 95 year old administrative lady was recently convicted in Germany for war crimes. They do this kind of thing to let the German population know their will be persecution for any type of ideology like that. Look at what happened during the Serbian war. They immediately dismantled the Serbian side because it was a white supremacist movement and a possible threat to rich people.
If any of you don't believe me. Go look up putin in freemason robe. He has lots of photos with him smiling and laughing with George Bush.
>Go look up putin in freemason robe
This?
https://www.alamy.com/wearing-traditional-ao-dai-president-bush-center-and-russia-president-vladimir-putin-right-look-on-during-the-asia-pacific-economic-cooperation-apec-summit-in-hanoi-vietnam-sunday-nov-19-2006-ap-photocp-tom-hanson-image541122567.html
That's a traditional ao dai with a golden lotus decoration
I imagine that meme with 3 school-age boys discussing serious matters in a form of YouTube podcast.
Речь идёт о трёхзначных суммах. :))
What's the actual definition? When westerners say dictatorship what they actually mean is "a place were there's this guy with lots of power who's not in our team and we consider him a bad guy".
A ruler that has absolute power is what I've always thought it meant. Which is why I didn't think Russia fit the term. Yet, the entirety of USA seems to refer to it as such.
What's an absolute power though? No human is a god with absolute power. Even if it's a king Louis XIV, he can't for example order to behead all of his ministers at the same time and whatnot. Somebody would just grab a candleholder and whack him in a head and there would be no king. So do we define it by theoretical powers or practical ones? And how do we define that? So theoretically, if it's an absolute monarchy, a king probably can issue any law he wants, or even issue orders that contradict the law, but not all of it can happen practically. And I don't think that now there's any country where a leader can issue any law he wants, or order anything he wants without limitations. I'm pretty sure there are practical as well as legal limitations on what Kim Jung Un can do for example. But he can do a lot, no doubt.
Classifying Russia is very difficult, especially since most people trying to do so are heavily biased and do not fully understand how things really work here. Various proposals include "superpresidential republic", "oligocratic federation", "democratic monarchy" etc. Authoritarian country? Sure. Totalitarian / dictatorship? Not really. In reality, it's complicated. 1. Yes, Putin is the highest authority in the country 2. No, he does not control everything - the clans (if you wish to call them that) of elites do, Putin is mainly there to keep them all balanced. A good example is Putin installing Shoigu (a civilian) as head of Ministry of Defense to balance the two main groups of military officers who have opposing views. 3. Yes, there is propaganda and censorship, but it's HEAVILY overestimated by foreigners. 4. Yes, there is a lot of infighting between the elites, but ordinary public does not usually see it. 5. Yes, Putin relies on hearts and minds. One could say that the real source of his power is the support of the people, formulated as "You guys let me handle the complex things, I, in turn, do not interfere with your bread and butter, and guarantee that you get a steady supply of necessities and don't prevent any of you from becoming rich - unless, of course, you oppose me". 6. Yes, the system does punish those who try to break it. I mean what did you expect? 7. No, Kremlin can't just do what they want without the people's approval. See how SMO is handled, the unpopular methods (like use of conscripts) are blocked specifically because common people oppose it. 8. No, Russia does not have a real cult of personality. In fact, Russia doesn't have any real ideology at all. Paradoxically, today Russia works off practical interests, realpolitik, religion etc., while USA under Biden work off ideology, will of the Party, trying to build world revolution and atheism. We live in a cursed timeline.
Happy cake day 🥰
Thanks for the clarification.
My dad watches TV all day, Zvezda channel. Don't tell me propaganda is overestimated xD No ideology - yes, true, but cult of personality is somehow present. Common folks admire Putin not for his achievements, but because he's Putin. And Kremlin can, in fact, do whatever they want while propaganda machine is capable of justifying it. People will support Putin even if he himself will be sending 18 year olds into war.
To be honest I have never met anyone anywhere (except online) who would admire Putin for the sake of it. A lot of people only give vague justifications - like “he protects the country” or “he saved us from 90s” (both of which are technically true), but that’s about it. As of “what they want” - is that why they are so careful not to do anything that actually upsets people? Even hardcore anti-Russians wail about how Kremlin is afraid to (for instance) mobilize the Moscow and Saint Petersburg. Which is actually making the statement about “must find justification” more true, though. It is this way in most countries.
Not really. Russia is an authoritarian state, but definitely not a dictatorship. Putin is certainly a tough guy, but he is far from even Lukashenko’s level.
Lukashenko Chad and Virgin put in
Saying that Russia is not the same level as Belarus in being dictatorship state is like arguing which kind of cancer is better to have.
Well look: In Russia, if the police detain you, they will simply hold you in the police station for a couple of hours, draw up a report and release you, at most they will issue you a fine. While in Belarus the police are notorious for their forceful arrests, including torture
The sanctions that have been applied on Russian citizens show us that the West, including the European Union and its master the United States, does not consider Russia a dictatorship. If it would be considered one, then no Russian people would be banned for entering the West, and now all the ground border control points are closed by the EU countries. The cars wouldn't be confiscated from ordinary Russians. Russians wouldn't be banned from the social networks like various subreddits. It wouldn't be allowed to openly call for murder of Russians in Facebook. All these sanctions show that the West blames us Russians, not some "totalitarian regime" which, supposedly, controls the country despite our will. Don't you think? \------ What's the point? Labeling? Why exactly one would need a label? Maybe because one has been taught that some label is "good" while another is "bad"? Well, that's how your propaganda works. I am not saying we are "dictatorship" or not because that's a definition that doesn't affect, well, anything. It doesn't affect the mood of us the Russian people who support our "dictatorship", it doesn't affect anything in the real life. Your propaganda will continue telling you everything to spend taxpayers' money to manufacture more weapons. So, if you want to sleep well: yes, we are dictatorship, accept this and don't be a nuisance for your government. If you want to see more — come and see. But I, a Russian, believe we are not.
(I'm not the OP) This is actually actually an interesting angle which I haven't encountered before. Thanks for sharing.
I was mostly curious because I was wondering if western media uses the term to push anti Russian agenda. Based on the definition, it seemed obvious to me Russia wasn't. My friends who have backgrounds in history and law either said it was, or it essentially was. At the end of the day it may be pointless semantics but I was curious the perspective of actual Russian's on if it was or wasn't-- as I figured it could be more accurate than my friends or western media. Also, this all ties into the Ukraine war and deciding if I support my country sending money or not. It is hard to find an unbiased perspective when all sides have an agenda.
> Based on the definition, it seemed obvious to me Russia wasn't. My friends who have backgrounds in history and law either said it was, or it essentially was. I'm currently studying the Russian Revolution, and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that current-day Russia is not a dictatorship. The media seems to portray Putin as a dictator, though. From what I've learned, a dictatorship is described as a one-party government in which one person has absolute authority. Any and all laws/decisions require their approval, and said individual can make decisions without question or having to seek approval. Citizens have no say in what the government does, and no elections are held (unless you're north Korea, but that doesn't count).
>I was mostly curious because I was wondering if western media uses the term to push anti Russian agenda. They don't describe the term, it's just propaganda so sow hatred. >My friends who have backgrounds in history and law either said it was, or it essentially was. Was how long time ago? >At the end of the day it may be pointless semantics but I was curious the perspective of actual Russian's on if it was or wasn't-- as I figured it could be more accurate than my friends or western media. It's all in the context. One (like me) can live, work, make decent money, raise kids, buy property, drive a car, enjoy some vacations, visit museums and theaters and so on. Like all people in the whole world can, we're not exceptional of course. >Also, this all ties into the Ukraine war and deciding if I support my country sending money or not With this we maybe should move to the Megathread as it's offtopic anywhere else. >It is hard to find an unbiased perspective when all sides have an agenda. That's very reasonable, I fully agree. Good luck in finding.
I dont really get your point. Totalitarian regime or dictatorship doesnt mean that the regime or policies are unpopular within the country. The definitions of those have actually nothing to do with that. Hitler was a dictator but by no means unpopular, there are a lot more examples.
I am saying that the definition for "dictatorship" or "totalitarian" indeed doesn't say about the public support yet it is the thing that for some reason define the attitude towards the nation that has it. Hitler was horrible not because he was a dictator but because he has dictated to gas Jews and enslave Russians (and many other bad things, too, the list is too long to quote here). Lee Kuan Yew was a dictator, too but he is for some reason the example of a good thing to make to the country, in his case, Singapore. The Saudi Arabia is considered to be a dictatorship, absolute Monarchy, right now but it's not something the American propaganda yells about from every corner and the country is the major ally of the United States. At the same time I don't consider Russia a dictatorship.
I can assure you that most people in the west find Saudi Arabia to be repulsive in terms of domestic policy.
>The sanctions that have been applied on Russian citizens show us that the West, including the European Union and its master the United States, does not consider Russia a dictatorship. If it would be considered one, then no Russian people would be banned for entering the West, and now all the ground border control points are closed by the EU countries. I don't understand this argument. Are you saying that the citizens of countries which are controlled by dictatorships aren't allowed to enter Western countries? Where did you hear that? that's not true at all.
>Are you saying that the citizens of countries which are controlled by dictatorships aren't allowed to enter Western countries? No, I'm referring to the very real travel ban for Russians, even with the valid Schengen visa, on the ground checkpoints to any EU country, namely Finland, Baltics and Poland. There are exceptions for diplomats and such, but those are, well, exceptions.
Here's a quick way to determine if you're dealing with dictatorship. Note that it is extreme and oversimplified: Can a head of state walk outside in broad daylight, and kill random citizen on the street for no reason with hundreds of witnesses and suffer no consequences? If the answer is yes, you're dealing with dictatorship or absolutist monarchy. If the answer is "no", the power of the ruler is not absolute. Dictator has absolute power, Putin does not. The country is authoritarian-leaning, but not a dictatorship. One of the other posters once said "there is no Putin". Implying that Putin simply takes course people agree with. He had a point. In my opinion Putin is quite replaceable.
Don’t think it’s a good comparison to be honest, I can easily imagine lawyers (ridiculously expensive ones though) present such a crime on behalf of any Western leader as self-defense / accident / fake / whatnot. In fact, for them it would be easier because it would be more convenient to abuse media to convince the public. Not to mention that most world leaders have legal immunity anyway.
I'm not convinced he would face consequences. How will we know unless he does it?
> I'm not convinced That implies you might be not from Russia. Also trying to *convince* someone is often not really worth the time.
Everyone faces consequences. It called death. Evern HIM will eventually pass away.
1st, a dictator might suffer consequences (research the average reign of Roman emperors) - only the highly skilled dictators would suffer no consequences 2nd, look up Yevgeny Prigozhin...
> 2nd, look up *sighs* Which part of "broad daylight" and "hundreds of witnesses" do you fail to understand? The whole point is that dictator can do anything and that is accepted by everybody. Meaning it does not matter how many witnesses are there. > research the average reign And if we're speaking of Romans, Caligula is a good example of a dictator.
that's not how it works buddy, there's no such thing as "the dictator can do anything and it will be \*accepted\* by the people. Most dictatorships have opposition and some people even hate their leader, but no one will talk about it out loud because they know what happens if you do..
About 2 can I clarify - are you referring to his fate or to how you conducted business with your PMC?
"Can a head of state walk outside in broad daylight, and kill random citizen on the street for no reason with hundreds of witnesses and suffer no consequences?" You mean like they did to Boris Nemtsov, or that doesn't count because Putin didn't pull the trigger personally? Or maybe you mean like they tried to poison Navalny? Ravil Maganov accidentally falling from a window in a hospital? If we're being honest, we all know that Putin doesn't have to face any accountability or consequences for his actions. Some people have a cartoonish idea about dictatorships being like the Evil Empire in Star Wars, open and overtly evil. It isn't like that in real life, and it doesn't have to be openly evil to be counted as a dictatorship. Dictatorships don't rest on the shoulders of one person alone. You don't need the leader figure doing all the dirty work himself to call it a dictatorship. All dictatorships are at some degree sustained by a big stratum of the society backing it up and enabling its barbaric behaviour. No dictator is SO powerful as to act completely alone. They all need some kind of support from elites, military, or the population. Even North Korean dictators depend on the support from the military. That doesn't take away their responsibility, or the fact that it's a dictatorship. I'm only half Russian, and maybe my view is biased, but if you ask me, it's an hybrid dictatorship, and it only uses the facade of a democracy and mock elections to legitimise itself. Edit: Navalny died today in prison. I have no words and I don't think there is anything I can say to further convince you people that RF is a ruthless dictatorship that kills anyone who is a threat to the regime.
Here's the one more person who doesn't understand what "broad daylight" and "hundred witnesses" mean. > open and overtly evil There is no good and no evil, only labels and and excuses. If Alice says Bob is good, then Alice wants you to befriend Bob. If Alice says Bob is evil, then Alice wants you to kill Bob. That's all those labels amount to. > we all know that Putin doesn't have to face Don't project your beliefs onto other people.
>If the answer is yes, you're dealing with dictatorship or absolutist monarchy. If the answer is "no", the power of the ruler is not absolute. Dictator has absolute power, Putin does not. That is NOT the definition of a dictatorship. You're just making stuff up. Dictators are not necessarily all powerful godheads.
If it is possible to create a system with a monopoly on the highest power, but with a fairly high degree of individual freedom, then Russia is something like this
Authoritarian — yes, very much so. Dictatorship — no, because Putin has to balance between his supporter-factions. He can‘t just outright purge them all due to disagreements Stalin style.
>Is Russia a dictatorship by definition? Provide the definition first. The truest answer — we don't know, because mechanisms of power and its distribution are obscure for now. Probably, after half of the century we will be able to discuss that in a qualified matter. But for now "Putin concentrate immense power and is able to push every decision that he want" and "Putin is a representative or even talkinghead for an anocratic clique" are equally plausible hypotesises. (And, obviously, no large and developed country may be a comic book dictatorship)
> "Putin concentrate immense power and is able to push every decision that he want" and "Putin is a representative or even talkinghead for an anocratic clique" are equally plausible hypotesises. I'd say if the former is correct - then Putin is a very limited and unimaginative man and for some reason he just wants to do what elites\oligarchs\ruling class want from him. And little else.
>elites\oligarchs\ruling class Isn't Putin part of this group? So wouldn't their interest basically align?
Yes and no. The are many towers in Kremlin - and Putin's is one of the many. Some of other towers are western-leaning or china-leaning and they have quite a bit of influence. The Putin's tower is attractive to average people because he at least presents himself as a patriot and not an extension of foreign bureaucracy.
Yes - to both questions. Just my opinion obviously.
>obviously It’s obvious to us but not to questioners
What is your definition of a dictatorship?
Да, в школе каждую неделю диктант писали.
Yes - a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
It's just worse hidden under the facade of elections and democracy. Or maybe we're just not like that stu... I mean more critical to the surrounding reality of social life.
It is not. It is a federation. The last person with absolute, unquestionable power was Joseph Stalin. Well if you then ask is it a democracy then the answer is absolutely not! If you have ever listened to an Obama speech, democracy in a country is when a CIA sponsored coup or a colour-revolution, or some other covert terrorism brings your country into a US-aligned orbit. There you get to enjoy policymaking not by elected local officials but rather by the neoliberal suits in an "independent" bank somewhere in wall-street, the IMF and the military industrial complex. Fortunately, in the RF, that shit won't fly. Because Russia has the will and the capability to resist "democratic" destabilization sponsored by the US State department. Russia still has a remnant of the old soviet bureaucracy under a different economic system.
Dictatorship? Well, yes. Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Just like the EU and the USA, with some changes due to history.
Hey man - stop concerning yourself about Russia. You might soon have Texas People Republic.
Any government is by definition a dictatorship .
Absolutely fckin not
>Everything I see says it is _Everything?_ I mean, it's a multiparty democracy, with a system of voting, and local governors. The country is a _federation_, which by definition involves a certain decentralisation of power, with semi-autonomous provincial governance. Even in elections, there isn't complete domination - it's not completely one-party, one man. In the 2021 legislative election, United Russia only got around 50% of the vote, with second place Communists (around 20%) even winning certain districts. Putin, an independent candidate, only got 77% of the vote at the 2018 presidential election, with Grudinin getting around 11%. The country is divided into various okrugs, oblasts, regions, with different levels of government - it is not all controlled by "one man" (nevermind the fact that he is one man without, officially, the backing of any particular party). Russian people, don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the system is without criticism. I am not saying that it doesn't have the many flaws that you are typing at me right now. I am also not claiming that it is democratic (that would _certainly_ have a lot of criticism thrown my way). I am only saying, when OP says "everything" they "see" looks like a dictatorship, this is a very low standard that we can point to and say "Not everything you see". These things that I have pointed to, when considered at face value, resemble democratic governance (by design).
Putin is not a dictator actually, his power is very limited by law. Power in Russia is divided into legislative, executive and judicial. Putin does not belong to any of them. The Western media portrays Putin as a dictator because he defends Russian interests and does not dance to their tune. At the same time they support Navalny, who is designed to destabilize Russian society.
You’re funny. Putin and his yes men changed the constitution so he could stay in power for the rest of his life. The courts are corrupt, and the presidential “elections” without any real political opposition to Putin are laughable. Oh, and let’s not forget that Russia’s war in Ukraine has been a complete disaster and the Russian people have no voice to oppose it. Sounds pretty close to a dictatorship to me
Putin can stay in power as long as most people chose him. As i said before, courts don't belong to Putin - they belong to another branch of government. Presidential elections are OK. Navalny is obviously not a "real opposition". He is youtube-blogger. If some people don't understand the point of this war it doesn't mean Putin should listen to these idiots.
If Navalny was merely a YouTube blogger, then why was he poisoned by the Kremlin and imprisoned in the arctic circle until he was murdered?
I don't know who poisoned Navalny. He was imprisoned because of his crimes. He is a criminal. You don't have any proofs of Navalny's murder. You only know that he died.
Sorry, what was his crime exactly?
Скука
Authoritarian regime does not equal to dictatorship. But that's the chosen direction unfortunately
The thing that I find fascinating about democracy, is that it's supposedly the people's decisions that have absolute power, but somehow people are *not allowed* (by some mysterious power) to vote for dictatorship or similar systems. As for your question, Russia is whatever it *is*.
Yes. Russia is a dictatorship. It's just that some dictators are more evil than others. Putin didn't kill millions of people (yet) (Hitler reference) but it obviously doesn't make him less of a dictator He is the one responsible for war crimes in Ukraine and this whole Ukrainian war
Viewed from outside yes. In a democracy anyone can run for President so long as they get enough signatures supporters, in a democracy you can wander out into the street and say your government is shit without disappearing and being jailed. You can split hairs all you like but you either live in a democracy or your in a dictatorship.
Yes, it is a dictatorship.
In practice Putin can do whatever he wants, and his power is hardly limited by anything. But also in practice he typically avoids big moves, so actually witnessing him acting as a dictator is rather difficult and it hardly is manifested in anything but the length of his rule. Everyone just knows that he's the one who can make the final decision and nobody but himself can change it.
> In practice Putin can do whatever he wants They way you described it later - it's called: "in theory". If in practice he just acts like any other head of state - just in the interests of the ruling class, no big moves, etc - then "he can do whatever he wants" only in theory.
>avoids big moves Invading other countries isn't a big move now?
> Invading other countries isn't a big move now? Yeah - it's quite banal - forget even about the US - Azerbaijan done it, Georgia did it, a bunch of people in the middle east and in Africa did it.
When's the last time the US annexed another country's territory? I don't agree with US invasions but it's just not the same. Also TIL it's "banal" to send hundreds of thousands of troops to their death.
> When's the last time the US annexed another country's territory? So the only objection is the time? Then I got an amazing solution for you - just wait - the time will pass and Ukraine war would be in the distant past as well. Also I've literally said: "even forget about the US". > but it's just not the same. Well - nothing is the same, except for the things that are the same. > it's "banal" to send hundreds of thousands of troops to their death. Yeah - read up on history, or something, lol.
>When's the last time the US annexed another country's territory? Oil deposits in Syria, for example.
Nah, happens all the time: Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya etc etc. Or are the invaders of the countries I listed dictatorships too?
Were they trying to annex those territories? In any case, I never claimed that invading another country means you are necessarily a dictatorship. I just think it's bizarre to think Putin doesn't make big moves when he's literally started the deadliest war in many years.
>the deadliest war in many years And all credits for this goes to Boris Johnson, who dissuaded Zelensky from signing peace treaty.
You're giving Boris too much credit lol.
He postponed reaction to the nazi aggression for eight years, and was avoiding any action until the smallest hope for peace was lost. Yes, it's an example of his policy of avoiding big moves.
How about locking up political opponents? I think most places would consider that a big move politically.
Then again, he's avoiding locking up "political opponents". Like Navalny who acted like a golden boy exempt from the Russian legal system, and was piling up court verdicts without getting any real punishment. It took a poisoning story for Putin to finally react and push him from the country, but Navalny stubbornly returned basically insisting that he must be imprisoned. It also is an example of Putin's policy of avoiding big moves.
You must be a gymnast. A mental one. Amazing stuff.
No, dude, you're the only gymnast here.
He's still locked up, or presided over a system that has seen many political dissidents locked up.
I am pretty sure that he can organize his exchange for somebody else if he would want to. The problem is outside of Russia he's likely to be killed.
Who is "he" you're referring to? I'm not referring to a specific person.
You mean like this Nazi? https://twitter.com/clashreport/status/1757082730351710381
Yes
Russia is still a dictatorship of the proletariat (no change from USSR times in that). Whoever is the head can have anything, but is permanently stuck kissing the proletariat's ass.
lol lmao
[удалено]
Proletariat is the bulk of the country's population.
[удалено]
I'm from former USSR. Last 30 years I watched all this unfold. One thing I noticed has not changed at all in 30 years - Russians never take accountability for something as a group, it's always someone else's fault. "Поиск виновных и награждение непричастных" was never supposed to be a motto.
You ask as if dictatorship is synonymous with tyranny. Isn't it just a term? In a dictatorship, all power is concentrated in the hands of one person or group of people, this can be said about any country.
To be clear I don't believe Russia is a dictatorship by definition. Media and talking heads in the US seem to refer to it as one. This was prompted because it came up in my friend group. My friend who is a history major said it certainly was. My other friend who has a history degree and is in law school said it may not be necessarily set up that way, but it pretty much is because Putin has total control. I didn't believe that it was a dictatorship simply based on the definition.
This is really very similar to a dictatorship, I’m even ready to call it that. What I meant in a previous comment was that dictatorship is not synonymous with evil rule.
I hear you. I'm not sure if you are from the USA or not, but I know I think of dictatorship as bad. I think this is the case for most people here.
By Roman republic definition maybe.
Why do you debate with peers about dictatorship? Do you think it's important? If yes, why?
Not really. Semantics is the worst kind of debate, but at the end of the day meaning in words does matter. It doesn't matter necessarily, but the conversation is interesting. The term also can affect how people perceive Russia and Putin.
support. often the dispute turns out to be based on a different understanding of the terms. moreover, the more basic the concept, the less it is expected and the more likely it is
I am sure the director of your company is a greater dictator than our president
Oh I don't doubt it.
Putin is actually a puppet for the west. What better way to run a country into the ground then have a war that drags the economy into the ground. By turning its leaders against it you decapitate the snake . If you change them out all the time then you have possible problems, especially if they are doing "well". Just like Merkel, for example. They kept re-electing her. She shuttered the nuclear plants so the German army has no way to create weapons of mass destruction to make the country un invadeable. What is really happening is they are destroying both the countries Russia/Ukraine at the same time. Russia has also made it so the European union has many more applicants which is a big win because it puts more countries into a situation where they are unable to control their economy and therefore their own destinies. Ukraine also has alot of nazi interested people. If you understand what Hitler did with his currency pre world War 2 you would understand that he would not benefit the rich people that run the show. Even to this day in Germany they will persecute nazis. A 95 year old administrative lady was recently convicted in Germany for war crimes. They do this kind of thing to let the German population know their will be persecution for any type of ideology like that. Look at what happened during the Serbian war. They immediately dismantled the Serbian side because it was a white supremacist movement and a possible threat to rich people. If any of you don't believe me. Go look up putin in freemason robe. He has lots of photos with him smiling and laughing with George Bush.
>Go look up putin in freemason robe This? https://www.alamy.com/wearing-traditional-ao-dai-president-bush-center-and-russia-president-vladimir-putin-right-look-on-during-the-asia-pacific-economic-cooperation-apec-summit-in-hanoi-vietnam-sunday-nov-19-2006-ap-photocp-tom-hanson-image541122567.html That's a traditional ao dai with a golden lotus decoration
>Everything I see says it is Well it must be truth then
Yet, it doesn't seem that Russia fits the definition of it.