After the collapse of the Soviet Union, a bunch of Anglo American economic advisers recommended economic shock therapy of basically removing still existing subsidies for lots of basic consumer goods, apartment rent, etc.
The effect this actually had was to basically completely collapse the economy even further to the point that it was pretty common for a worker to be paid not in money, but in what a factory produced, and theyd have to go barter it for other things.
It was also common during this period for people to have to attempt to barter say their TV or a tool for food.
What emerged from this is basically a naked oligarchic kleptocracy.
While the official mechanisms of government existed... people barely had any faith in them as the new democratic government had essentially immediately collapsed the economy and led to coups and coup attempts.
Putin stepped into this basically with the idea that over time general faith in the government could be restored with real economic gains and a strong sense of nationalism, focused around him.
Initially his strategies and tactics, while brutal, did deliver real tangible progress, as Putin is exceptionally adept at basically negotiating with the other oligarchs. Corruption was and still is the norm.
Overtime... yeah, basically now the entirety of Putin's tactics and worldview and how the propoganda he uses domestically meets most if not all of Umberto Eco's tenets of fascism.
One can have a fascist leader in charge or involved in many different forms of formal government, as fascism is closer to the ideology of a movement than it is to a form of government.
But now, is it a dictatorship?
Well, basically, officially, no, unofficially, yes, but with the caveat that basically the whole thing could fall apart if various oligarchs are not sufficiently placated, or if someone can basically emerge as a more competent strong man... or if the entire economy/society collapses.
Putin has proved extremely adept at keeping himself in power for the last 20 ish years, extending executive term limits, and basically for a period of time sitting back and letting Mebvedev be President for a term while Putin essentially semi-temporarily-retired to merely being the Prime Minister, then resumed as President.
tl;dr: Basically yes Putin is a fascist dictator, though there are some interesting differences with other fascist dictators.
Also please note that Trump is also a fascist, also by Umberto Eco's tenants of fascism, and has outright stated he wants to be a dictator 'if only for a day'. Yeah thats how that works, just one day as a dictator.
Ultimately this is why the MAGA crowd is so pro Russia and Putin. Both their leaders and movements are fascist.
I read your post with upmost interest, wondering where it would blow up, but in the end you saved it all :-)
IMO it was the URSS/CCCP that fucked up basically all dynamics in the country, and birthed against their will the robber barons, well before the fall.
A country relying on gosplans every five year that were circumvented by everyone was one of the problems "solved" by the groups once to be the oligarcs of Putin.
Anyways, putin has to go and russia must, even if divided into geographical entities and denuclarized, become democratic.
For the people.
For the people.
Yes it is true that the seeds of the oligarchs that would emerge were sewn by inadequacies of the former Soviet system, but
-
Dear god is that complicated, difficult for non Russian speakers such as myself to get a thorough grasp on without a good deal of research, and not something I feel I could approach accurately and correctly summarize.
-
I didn't want to do the Putin thing and explain the entire history of Russia, I figured starting at the collapse of the Soviet Union is a decent starting point for giving at least an incredibly brief but hopefully accurate bit of historical context focusing on Russia under the leadership of Putin.
-
Oh yeah, I watched the whole series at one point around 5 years ago. I could do with a refresh, love Adam Curtis!
Every dictator exists on the courtesy of those around him and closest to him. How he keeps these strongmen in line differs, but a dictator can meet their end anytime any place by not balancing the needs of the people with the individual needs and wants of his strongmen enough. Needs and wants include threats of violence, food, money, anything you can think of.
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: yes, it is.
Officially, the Russian Federation is a federal semi-presidential republic, which is not all that dissimilar to a federal presidential democratic republic like the United States.
However, Putin has abused the political system to keep himself in power, and thus has sort of made the unofficial government an authoritarian dictatorship. I do not know that it qualifies exactly as facist, however (simply because I am not a facist expert and do not know every qualification to distinguish it from authoritarian or totalitarian government). I think this is why Wikipedia does not label the Russian Federation as facist, but rather a "federal semi-presidential republic under an authoritarian dictatorship."
This is the exact fascist playbook though. Technically, on paper, the third reich wasn’t a dictatorship either. Just that Hitler and his allies introduced and amended legislature to give him emergency powers, and basically declared a permanent state of emergency (very simplified).
Yes. Full stop.
You can't really get a concrete answer because there's not a completely agreed upon definition of fascism. Some pieces are somewhat general; right-wing populism, authoritarian dictatorship, nationalism and "rebirth", and the valorization of violence. Other parts can be considered by some, but not everyone, to be a part of fascism. There's a reason there's a whole wikipedia page on the definition of fascism..
Russia definitely meets some criteria of some definitions, but they don't necessarily meet all definitions of fascism. For example, some definitions of fascism include a complete rejection of communism and opposition to communists because that was the case for the fascists in the first half of the 20th century. Russia, however, still valorizes the strength and actions of soviet Russia, particularly in WWII. Putin's claim for the invasion of Ukraine was that it was to "denazify" it.
TL;DR, some people say if it doesn't meet all the right criteria, it's just sparkling white authoritarianism, others are fine calling it all champagne
Your right. Fascism is a nationalist ideology, that makes it hard to define across nations. Fascist Italy was different from fascist Germany. It was also of its time.
Russia isn't in these times and places so it's hard to pin down.
Russia biggest victory is the defeat of fascism. This makes it a big part of their valorisation. I don't think this makes Russia not fascist because the celebrate communism. It conflicts with their narrative to go against communism and national narrative is an important part of fascism far greater than anti-communism. The important part wasn't the anti-communism, rather an external enemy. Russia has this wether it be NATO, LGBT or Ukraine becoming less corrupt and more democratic.
Fascist also thought fascism was good and the future. People don't think this any more. Fascism means evil know even fascist thinks this and don't call themselves fascist.
Their is a growing right wing, anti-democratic, corrupt and populists movement. They don't have a name nor a clear ideology. They break conventions, dismiss or attack courts and subvert democracy. They exist in the West but they don't have a strong foothold. Johnson and Trump could easily be called proto-fascist, they have been allowed free reign and their is still strong opposition. But China, Russia and Israel are full blast down this path. They don't have a name but they will and Historians will see it as the second coming of Fascism or sparkling authoritarianism.
You can’t really get a concrete answer because there’s not a completely agreed upon definition of fascism.
That's because there is no such thing as a consistently identifiable "fascist ideology" - it's all just disjointed but thoroughly weaponized right-wing pretexts and excuses specific to the country in question dialled up to eleven with no regard to logical consistency. It also doesn't help that liberals' attempts to "define" fascism are hamstrung by their desire to frame fascism as something "aberrant" to the classical liberal nation state, when, in fact, it most definitely isn't "aberrant" but instead built into the classical liberal nation state's very foundations.
If people want to call Putin a fascist, fine - but then they have to call Erdogan from Turkey and Netenyahu from Israel fascists as well since they have basically walked the same line he did.
Not sure if this is the best way to share a Mastodon toot, but it really helped me understand what fascism is. The essay by Umberto Eco referenced in the toot is one of the gold standard references for identifying and understanding fascist movements.
Short Answer? Yes.
Long answer? Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees.Forced Conscription. Check.
Rigged Elections and kills all opposing candidates. Check.
Control of the state media and news outlets. Check.
Sounds right to me.
Forced Conscription.
Lol! Conscription is forced by definition.
Rigged Elections
If this was a definition of fascism the US would qualify as fascist as well.
kills all opposing candidates
This was a thing long before Mussolini thought up the word "fascist."
Control of the state media and news outlets.
Again, all states exert control over the media inside the territories they control.
This is not how you go about describing something as fascist.
By law, no. In effect, yes. Putin has very little stopgaps in his power, very few who can bring up bureaucracy and regulations to slow down his power train.
And the few who can wouldn't dare out of fear of Sudden Defenstration Syndrome
While perhaps not "the" authoritative source on the matter, I do find it a̶m̶u̶s̶i̶n̶g̶ appropriate that Wikipedia's page on Fascism in Russia is effectively a disambiguation page because of all the forms it has taken over the years.
How very strange...
I wonder if there are any particular institutions with large psyops that would have a vested interest in convincing the public at large that Russia is not a fascist state... 🤔
Nope, can't think of any. And now I am going to go jump out of a window with two bullets in the back of my head of my own free will
not even Russia knows what the fuck it is, there's no point trying to characterize it from the outside with broad textbook political definitions like that.. it's a criminal enterprise first and foremost.. any ideological considerations are lipstick on that pig..
are Russians fascist? you betcha they are.. is it a dictatorship? it's more of an official government mafia..
I feel like 'fascist dictatorship' is used in common parlance to just mean a political system without effective representative mechanisms, even though political scientists or historians would use more specific definitions.
I've heard terms like managed pseudo republic - there's a lot tightly controlled theatre of representation that you wouldn't need in a textbook dictatorship, even if the effect is the same.
There are obvious and strong autocratic elements in putin's personal power, but the need to keep key elites on side - and everyone (including actual generals!) building PMCs - highlights oligarchic elements.
There's also the resource-curse so there's petro-state elements.
The state ideology is a little loose to fit neatly into fascism, but is certainly heading more in that direction.
A hybrid mafia state seems to describe it fairly well from what I know, but I definitely think it's too unique to fit into any one textbook definition.
Almost definitely...
Absolutely.
Yes. Next question.
I like Umberto Eco's definition, personally.
Eco's identification of certain attributes in regards to fascist Germany and Italy is just that - identification of certain attributes, and most definitely in no way a "definition."
In order to have a workable definition of fascism, we would have to also acknowledge why it exists and for whose benefit - and this is where liberal treatises on fascism falls hopelessly short. You simply cannot properly investigate the causes of fascism without investigating the capitalist and colonialist structures that gives birth to it.
Guess not since it doesn't have any coherent ideology. But I guess it's a port of it to a current situation.
To a certain degree.
I don't think so.
Username checks out
