there's a great boris kargalistsky article from 20 years ago on russia's managed democracy that began under yeltsin and that putin perfected and streamlined. it focuses on the communist party...but you can read it as an indictment of the whole system:
"The wise Yeltsin knew perfectly well that the surest way for him to retain his dictatorial powers was to create the appearance of democracy. There was, indeed, democracy in Russia, only it did not extend to the Kremlin. The opposition could speak, the press could criticise, the citizens could vote, and everything was wonderful тАФ except that none of this had the slightest bearing on the question of power.
"For the system to work properly, it required an opposition that was incapable in principle of taking office. Zyuganov's party coped with this role to perfection. In this sense it has always been one of the system's fundamental political elements. The KPRF has also been assigned another task, no less important and perhaps even more so: to struggle against any attempts at founding a political alternative to the regime. Zyuganov and his associates have fought consistently and with determination against anyone who has tried to attack the regime from the left. The Communist leaders have denounced such people as extremists, as "traitors", or simply as "unserious individuals"."
that's a superficial read. america has it's own problems, yahweh knows, but here the discipling and organizing forces are corporate and billionaire power, as america is a true oligarchy. in russia putin has really organized the state where ultimate political power rests with himself. this war has demonstrated it to be true, as it goes against the economic interests of the vast majority of russia's billionaires. "power vertical," they call it in russia.
I read a lot of random things, but i cant remember anyone referring to the Us as an oligarchy.. Describing it in so many words, perhaps- but the word oligarchy is so specific and final it seems better than any description. Maybe this is hindsight, but putins east german pic is terrifying, thats a little napoleon if ive ever seen one, if not a ted bundy to boot. Do you think oligarchy is a compromise between roughly equally strong power factions when one cant win outright, that otherwise would just be a dictatorship? When one thinks about power in the Us in oligarchical terms, my first impression is how much it is always rearranging and shifting alliances over time. Why doesnt one faction ever win in the Us- or does it? Am i right to think most polities usually end up with a single power faction rather than true oligarchy?
"Inverted totalitarianism" seems unnecessarily confusing of a term, although the article looks interesting. (There, too, the author says the democracy in the streets doesnot effect the actions of the govt, like in the article about russia).
In my comment, i said shifting alliances, not shifting allegiances. Im 42 y o, and in my life the ruling elite has changed, maybe dramatically, with the younger billionaires entering themix, and stayed the same in other ways. But it changes around even from election to election sometimes-if it didnt, there would be no outcry from clintons backers when trump won, etc. Its curious and confusing, and perhaps gives the impression of actual democracy to the uninformed.
i'd say the duma is a shell. it's not a force of popular will. it can't push him to do anything. it's pretty much understood in russia that any major laws or initiatives coming out of it either get handed down from above or get rubber stamped and approved in the process, especially ones that are important to him or touch on his personal initiatives, like this war. to frame this as putin's being goaded into something because of duma pressure is...well...i wouldn't put much credence in these things.
"how much power Putin really holds in Russia?" -- he holds a lot of power and this special operation is totally his baby. it's wholly his.
there's a great boris kargalistsky article from 20 years ago on russia's managed democracy that began under yeltsin and that putin perfected and streamlined. it focuses on the communist party...but you can read it as an indictment of the whole system:
"The wise Yeltsin knew perfectly well that the surest way for him to retain his dictatorial powers was to create the appearance of democracy. There was, indeed, democracy in Russia, only it did not extend to the Kremlin. The opposition could speak, the press could criticise, the citizens could vote, and everything was wonderful тАФ except that none of this had the slightest bearing on the question of power.
"For the system to work properly, it required an opposition that was incapable in principle of taking office. Zyuganov's party coped with this role to perfection. In this sense it has always been one of the system's fundamental political elements. The KPRF has also been assigned another task, no less important and perhaps even more so: to struggle against any attempts at founding a political alternative to the regime. Zyuganov and his associates have fought consistently and with determination against anyone who has tried to attack the regime from the left. The Communist leaders have denounced such people as extremists, as "traitors", or simply as "unserious individuals"."
https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/russia-there-life-kprf-after-yeltsin
that's a superficial read. america has it's own problems, yahweh knows, but here the discipling and organizing forces are corporate and billionaire power, as america is a true oligarchy. in russia putin has really organized the state where ultimate political power rests with himself. this war has demonstrated it to be true, as it goes against the economic interests of the vast majority of russia's billionaires. "power vertical," they call it in russia.
I read a lot of random things, but i cant remember anyone referring to the Us as an oligarchy.. Describing it in so many words, perhaps- but the word oligarchy is so specific and final it seems better than any description. Maybe this is hindsight, but putins east german pic is terrifying, thats a little napoleon if ive ever seen one, if not a ted bundy to boot. Do you think oligarchy is a compromise between roughly equally strong power factions when one cant win outright, that otherwise would just be a dictatorship? When one thinks about power in the Us in oligarchical terms, my first impression is how much it is always rearranging and shifting alliances over time. Why doesnt one faction ever win in the Us- or does it? Am i right to think most polities usually end up with a single power faction rather than true oligarchy?
"Inverted totalitarianism" seems unnecessarily confusing of a term, although the article looks interesting. (There, too, the author says the democracy in the streets doesnot effect the actions of the govt, like in the article about russia).
In my comment, i said shifting alliances, not shifting allegiances. Im 42 y o, and in my life the ruling elite has changed, maybe dramatically, with the younger billionaires entering themix, and stayed the same in other ways. But it changes around even from election to election sometimes-if it didnt, there would be no outcry from clintons backers when trump won, etc. Its curious and confusing, and perhaps gives the impression of actual democracy to the uninformed.
yes. putin began consolidating his power -- using his old kgb and leningrad buddies as sort of security state boyars -- long before the sanctions hit.
i'd say the duma is a shell. it's not a force of popular will. it can't push him to do anything. it's pretty much understood in russia that any major laws or initiatives coming out of it either get handed down from above or get rubber stamped and approved in the process, especially ones that are important to him or touch on his personal initiatives, like this war. to frame this as putin's being goaded into something because of duma pressure is...well...i wouldn't put much credence in these things.