Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Three near-identical Boris Vishnevskys on St Petersburg election ballot

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 177 posts

Re: Three near-identical Boris Vishnevskys on St Petersburg election ballot

#131

Post by unrequitedlove »

lostmsu wrote: post #98
int_19h wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

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)

Re: Three near-identical Boris Vishnevskys on St Petersburg election ballot

#132

Post by Symbiote »

jaywalk wrote: post #122
fennecfoxen wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Barack Obama won his first election using a different procedural trick — he looked up his three opponents' ballot petitions, and challenged enough of the signatures on the petitions that they were all delisted.

Not sure why you're being downvoted, because what you said is 100% true: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2007-04-04-070403...

The comment is upvoted now, but possibly the downvotes were for describing it as a "trick". One of the candidates they managed to interview admitted some signatures were forged for $5 each.

(The link opened fine for me.)

Re: Three near-identical Boris Vishnevskys on St Petersburg election ballot

#133

Post by ComputerGuru »

jaywalk wrote: post #122
fennecfoxen wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Barack Obama won his first election using a different procedural trick — he looked up his three opponents' ballot petitions, and challenged enough of the signatures on the petitions that they were all delisted.

Not sure why you're being downvoted, because what you said is 100% true: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2007-04-04-070403...

Non-paywall: https://archive.is/2Jyu2

Re: Three near-identical Boris Vishnevskys on St Petersburg election ballot

#134

Post by ComputerGuru »

QuercusMax wrote: post #123
jaywalk wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you're being downvoted, because what you said is 100% true: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2007-04-04-070403...

Your link redirects me to chicagotribune.com/. Maybe only works for subscribers?

I posted the obligatory archive.is link as a sibling comment.

Re: Three near-identical Boris Vishnevskys on St Petersburg election ballot

#135

Post by JadeNB »

rsj_hn wrote: post #128
nomoreplease wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the Florida case it was/is a common surname, not a full name. In this Russian case, two humans changed their full name to match. Presumably paid to do so. Very different situations Edit: in the Russian case, they also changed their appearance to match According to a sibling comment, this strategy goes back to JohnF Kennedy at least. Except that the Russians take it to the next level

I didn't know this. It's absolutely bizarre. I wonder why Russia even bothers with elections -- it's clearly not on the bandwagon for western liberalism, which seems fair enough to me, but then why go through the motions?

> I didn't know this. It's absolutely bizarre. I wonder why Russia even bothers with elections -- it's clearly not on the bandwagon for western liberalism, which seems fair enough to me, but then why go through the motions?

Why did Stalinist Russia bother with show trials? The appearance of legitimacy is enough to give cover to people who approve of the government without wanting to own up to its dirty tricks, and to mute the voices of those who disapprove.

Re: Three near-identical Boris Vishnevskys on St Petersburg election ballot

#136

Post by akoncius »

rsj_hn wrote: post #128
nomoreplease wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the Florida case it was/is a common surname, not a full name. In this Russian case, two humans changed their full name to match. Presumably paid to do so. Very different situations Edit: in the Russian case, they also changed their appearance to match According to a sibling comment, this strategy goes back to JohnF Kennedy at least. Except that the Russians take it to the next level

I didn't know this. It's absolutely bizarre. I wonder why Russia even bothers with elections -- it's clearly not on the bandwagon for western liberalism, which seems fair enough to me, but then why go through the motions?

spectacle is important here. it’s important for Putin to claim that people chose him, he is a leader of population by choice, not force.

look at Belarus, when stuff became too obvious, people started to display dissatisfaction. That is Putin’s fear IMO.

Re: Three near-identical Boris Vishnevskys on St Petersburg election ballot

#137

Post by vkou »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #85
baybal2 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they will falsify anyways. It's just them getting a complete reassurance that it's at least thrice rigged. So, what is being falsified? Everything. 1. Public polls (including fake "independent" polling companies appearing out of nowhere just few months before the elections) 2. Exit polls 3. Debates (some times fake doppelganger opposition candidates are sent to debates instead of real ones!) 4. Media landscape (a…

for a second there, I thought you were writing about the US election.

The US largely accomplishes its elections through corrupt primaries, gerrymandering, and voter suppression. Not all of this is relevant for every race - you can't gerrymander your way into the federal senate, for instance - but you can use it to get a 60% red legislature in a 52% blue state.

It looks better when the police uses violence to prevent problem people from voting, than to manufacture votes out of thin air.

Re: Three near-identical Boris Vishnevskys on St Petersburg election ballot

#139

Post by lostmsu »

vogre wrote: post #127
lostmsu wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> prohibits all opposition parties 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 at…

> Not all opposition parties are prohibited.

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.

Re: Three near-identical Boris Vishnevskys on St Petersburg election ballot

#140

Post by lostmsu »

unrequitedlove wrote: post #131
lostmsu wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

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.
Post reply on HN