That's a racist lie. It's also an important lie that helps to understand the worldview of Russian "liberals". In the Russian discourse and especially in the "liberal" discourse everything negative or evil always come from Asia. It's an axiom that requires no proof or evidence
Consider the following. Clueless people like parroting the idea about Russian despotism inherited from the Tatar Khanates. Ok. Let's assume this may be true. Then the question about the political & legal culture of the said Khanates should take central place in that discussion
The argument about the Russian absolutist practices being borrowed from the Tatar Khanates, depends on a question of how did those Khanates look like? Politics, law, institutions. Notice that this question strangely misses from the discussion. Because the entire argument is a lie
There are great studies on the politics and law of the Khanates but they never ever appear in this discussion because it is not an honest discussion at all. It is the endless affirmation of Russian superiority through belonging to the supreme culture/race whatever you like better
There is an axiom that Russians (as Europeans and thus a master race) could never build anything imperfect themselves. So if the political structure they built has imperfections then it must be the influence of Asiatics. Ok, but how did those Asiatic structures look like? Silence
The entire "Muscovite absolutism is derived from the Horde" argument is simply the affirmation of:
1. Russian superiority 2. Russians never holding any responsibility for how their country looks or what it is doing 3. Necessity of stricter ethnic/cultural purification in Russia
If there was even a grain of honest analysis in this discussion, they would first ask the question - what do we already know on the Khanates? What kind of research on them exists? They don't. Because it is simply a massive racist affirmation parroted by the clueless Westerners
If you want to learn about the Tatar political culture, you can find some real studies, based on primary sources in this thread. Krolikowska-Jedlinska who read the Crimean archives may be the most interesting. But Pochekaev and others also do a good job
Yes, and that is super duper quadruper important to understand
Koreans are poor (don't have an empire) and, therefore, must do productive work to earn their living. So, if the Americans want to learn how to do anything productive they must learn it from Koreans etc
There is this stupid idea that the ultra high level of life and consumption in the United States has something to do with their productivity. That is of course a complete sham. An average American doesn't do anything useful or important to justify (or earn!) his kingly lifestyle
The kingly lifestyle of an average American is not based on his "productivity" (what a BS, lol) but on the global empire Americans are holding currently. Part of the imperial dynamics being, all the actually useful work, all the material production is getting outsourced abroad
Reading Tess of the d'Urbervilles. Set in southwest England, somewhere in the late 1800s. And the first thing you need to know is that Tess is bilingual. He speaks a local dialect she learnt at home, and the standard English she picked at school from a London-trained teacher
So, basically, "normal" language doesn't come out of nowhere. Under the normal conditions, people on the ground speak all the incomprehensible patois, wildly different from each other
"Regular", "correct" English is the creation of state
So, basically, the state chooses a standard (usually, based on one of the dialects), cleanses it a bit, and then shoves down everyone's throats via the standardized education
Purely artificial construct, of a super mega state that really appeared only by the late 1800s
There's a subtle point here that 99,999% of Western commentariat is missing. Like, totally blind to. And that point is:
Building a huuuuuuuuuuge dam (or steel plant, or whatever) has been EVERYONE's plan of development. Like absolutely every developing country, no exceptions
Almost everyone who tried to develop did it in a USSR-ish way, via prestige projects. Build a dam. A steel plant. A huge plant. And then an even bigger one
And then you run out of money, and it all goes bust and all you have is postapocalyptic ruins for the kids to play in
If China did not go bust, in a way like almost every development project from the USSR to South Asia did, that probably means that you guys are wrong about China. Like totally wrong
What you describe is not China but the USSR, and its copies & emulations elsewhere
What I am saying is that "capitalist reforms" are a buzzword devoid of any actual meaning, and a buzzword that obfuscated rather than explains. Specifically, it is fusing radically different policies taken under the radically different circumstances (and timing!) into one - purely for ideological purposes
It can be argued, for example, that starting from the 1980s, China has undertaken massive socialist reforms, specifically in infrastructure, and in basic (mother) industries, such as steel, petrochemical and chemical and, of course, power
The primary weakness of this argument is that being true, historically speaking, it is just false in the context of American politics where the “communism” label has been so over-used (and misapplied) that it lost all of its former power:
“We want X”
“No, that is communism”
“We want communism”
Basically, when you use a label like “communism” as a deus ex machina winning you every argument, you simultaneously re-define its meaning. And when you use it to beat off every popular socio economic demand (e.g. universal healthcare), you re-define communism as a synthesis of all the popular socio economic demands
Historical communism = forced industrial development in a poor, predominantly agrarian country, funded through expropriation of the peasantry
(With the most disastrous economic and humanitarian consequences)
Many are trying to explain his success with some accidental factors such as his “personal charisma”, Cuomo's weakness etc
Still, I think there may be some fundamental factors here. A longue durée shift, and a very profound one
1. Public outrage does not work anymore
If you look at Zohran, he is calm, constructive, and rarely raises his voice. I think one thing that Mamdani - but almost no one else in the American political space is getting - is that the public is getting tired of the outrage
Outrage, anger, righteous indignation have all been the primary drivers of American politics for quite a while
For a while, this tactics worked
Indeed, when everyone around is polite, and soft (and insincere), freaking out was a smart thing to do. It could help you get noticed