Regarding the ethnic hierarchy in Russia. It's not some objective system like the Social Credit. There is of course a broad understanding of who stands higher or lower and the darker your skin is, the lower you are. Nevertheless, privilege and underprivilege are often situational
Example. I knew an Armenian technician from Avtovaz, the largest car producer in Russia located in Samara Oblast. His career wasn't going well and he explained it by his ethnicity:
"If I was some Tukhvatullin ("...ullin" = Tatar surname), I'd have been promoted long ago" said he
What did an Armenian technician mean by that? He didn't mean that Armenians "objectively" stand lower than Tatars. He implied that Armenians don't form a big interest group in Avtovaz. There are too few of them there to form a lobby. There is no Armenian network there to fit in
If you are Armenian, it makes sense to join the Armenian network. But in many places, like the Middle Volga machinery cluster, Armenian networks don't really exist. The Tatar ones do though. So in this specific business and area, it's situationally more advantageous to be a Tatar
Again, the more advantageous position of a Tatar over an Armenian is situational. You come to a factory and join your ethnic network. Or you come and see there's no ethnic network to join. In some other business like the medicine in Moscow, it could be the other way around though
While much of privilege and under-privilege is situational, there's an objective hierarchy, too. To put it simply, the whiter you are, the better. The darker you are, the worse. That's very clear and objective
I know it well, because I am white passing. As a result, I was never stopped by the police, or demanded a bribe. My friends who are darker are stopped literally every day.
One scenario:
Show me your documents -> We detain you for 48 hours to establish your identity [or pay us]
Another problem is accommodation. There's a lot of memes with a common topic:
"How you should look to rent an apartment in Moscow"
The context is that many (most?) adverts are "Slavs-only" (только славянам). So these memes show "perfect renters" - cartoonishly exaggerated Slavs
If you google "только славянам", you will see tons of adverts: both from landlords and from renters. This is indeed very common
That's a big topic in large Russian cities and indeed the battles are being fought over it. This complaint from a probably Azeri potential renter and the response of Avito website may be illustrative of it
Interestingly enough, the largest real estate website ЦИАН prohibited "only for Slavs" adverts in early 2022. Why?
To place an IPO at the New York Stock Exchange. They introduced measures against the ethnic discrimination, just to abide by the rules of the US capitalists
"Only for Slavs" adverts should be interpreted situationally, within the cultural context. Poles may be easily excluded. This Polish guy was surprised to find out that he doesn't satisfy the "Only for Slavs" requirement
Russian realities may look rather absurd for a Westerner. Here you see the Jewish Museum and Center for Tolerance in Moscow advert. They are looking for a bartender of "Slavic appearance"
Very tolerant, indeed. A worker doesn't need to be Slavic, just look Slavic. That's enough
If "Slavs" or people of "Slavic appearance" form the most privileged group in Russia, getting a preferential access to jobs, accommodation, career, etc, then who would occupy the lowest places?
The "Blacks". NB: "Blacks" are not Africans, those are "Negroes"
Interestingly enough, while in the English language, the N. word is offensive and the Black sounds neutral, in Russian it may be the other way around. "Negro" word may be neutral, while "Black" (черный) is always very offensive and dehumanising
These guys are obviously "Black"
"Black" is a synonym of a "wetback": the dark skinned underclass on the bottom of social ladder
I would recommend you to watch the Ravshan and Jamshut episodes here, as a crash course into the Russian ethnic hierarchy. They are the epitome of Blackness
While the Blackness has social and anthropological overtones: the dark skinned underclass from the South working on poorly paid manual jobs, it has a purely religious aspect, too. Generally speaking, Christianity kinda whitens you, while Islam makes you very much more Black
This is reflected in memes, too. Consider this photo of Kadyrov with the Fourteen Words - the white nationalist slogan.
That looks very funny. The joke is that:
1) they may seem to be white 2) while in fact, they're 100% Black
Islam makes you Black and Chechens are super Black
White vs Black dichotomy largely shapes the public consciousness and the internal discourse in Russia. Much of the right wing criticism of Putin is that he is too soft on Blacks. By the way, did you notice you never see a discussion about the criticism of Putin *from the right*?
Narrative on Russia is controlled by the media establishment of Moscow. And this media establishment is too invested into the alliance with the far right, who are advocating for a new crusade on Blackness. I'll elaborate it in my material on the "liberal" opposition. The end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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
People don’t really understand causal links. We pretend we do (“X results in Y”). But we actually don’t. Most explanations (= descriptions of causal structures) are fake.
There may be no connection between X and Y at all. The cause is just misattributed.
Or, perhaps, X does indeed result in Y. but only under a certain (and unknown!) set of conditions that remains totally and utterly opaque to us. So, X->Y is only a part of the equation
And so on
I like to think of a hypothetical Stone Age farmer who started farming, and it worked amazingly, and his entire community adopted his lifestyle, and many generations followed it and prospered and multiplied, until all suddenly wiped out in a new ice age
1. Normative Islamophobia that used to define the public discourse being the most acceptable form of racial & ethnic bigotry in the West, is receding. It is not so much dying as rather - failing to replicate. It is not that the old people change their views as that the young do not absorb their prejudice any longer.
In fact, I incline to think it has been failing to replicate for a while, it is just that we have not been paying attention
Again, the change of vibe does not happen at once. The Muslim scare may still find (some) audience among the more rigid elderly, who are not going to change their views. But for the youth, it is starting to sound as archaic as the Catholic scare of know nothings
Out of date
2. What is particularly interesting regarding Mamdani's victory, is his support base. It would not be much of an exaggeration to say that its core is comprised of the young (and predominantly white) middle classes, with a nearly equal representation of men and women