1. Whiteness and Blackness are not constants. They reflect the socioeconomic order, not the other way around
2. When we say "Blacks" (черные), whom do we imagine? Hairy smelly brownish wetbacks of course. Ergo, Blackness combines both anthropological and socioeconomic qualities
3. In a sense "Blackness" is a tool for othering and dehumanising the working class, thus reinforcing the socioeconomic hierarchy. Those on the bottom of the social ladder are obviously subhuman. How do we know it? Just look at their skin. Honestly we are too kind to them
4. Until the late 20th c most Russian cities did not have the anthropologically different working class. There were exceptions ofc, like the Chinese immigrant workers who played a major role in the Civil War as the Bolshevik force. But nobody cares of pre-revolutionary era anyway
5. In fact, Tsardom and then the Empire used to have lots of *higher* status newcomers from the South. For example, since 1650s a few Georgian kings immigrated to Muscovy and brought with them masses of aristocracy. Who were all awarded lands and (Russian) serfs. E.g. in Novgorod
6. Here you can see a Georgian prince Alexander Bagration, the first Russian Generalfeldzeugmeister (= commander of artillery) who fought against the Swedes in the Great Northern War
7. Georgian aristocracy occupied a very peculiar "Tsarevich" niche in the Muscovite hierarchy. "Tsarevich" is literally a son of a Tsar. In Muscovy though it could refer to the foreign royalty who stood beneath the Tsar but above the Russian bojar aristocracy. A Prince étranger
8. Tsarevich were immigrant royalty from wherever whose role largely consisted in maintaining the God-like status of a Moscow ruler. He has royalty on his service, he must be really great then
9. Before Georgians it were mostly Tatars and Circassians who played this role. In the 16th c. it was very common. But in the 17th c Muscovy changed fundamentally and now was much more militantly Christian and more importantly *consistently* Christian. That was no longer possible
10. Georgian aristocracy occupied an important position of the immigrant Tsarevich royalty who confirmed the rank and status of the Tsar. They were showered with wealth and privileges of course. Their Christianity was very much of an advantage in a quickly Christianising Muscovy
11. Btw, I never read a consistent argument about the Russian militant Christianity of the 17th c. being the offshoot of the Counterreformation and specifically of the Jesuit movement. This is very obviously true and yet, I never saw a nice narrative that would make that point
12. Anyway, Georgians enjoyed relatively high status in the pre-revolutionary Russia as providers of the Christian aristocracy. Circassians weren't really Christian, Armenians were associated with commerce which was shameful. Georgians were probably the highest status Caucasians
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Let's have a look at these four guys. Everything about them seems to be different. Religion. Ideology. Political regime. And yet, there is a common denominator uniting all:
Xi - 71 years old
Putin - 72 years old
Trump - 79 years old
Khamenei - 86 years old
Irrespectively of their political, ideological, religious and whatever differences, Russia, China, the United States, Iran are all governed by the old. Whatever regime, whatever government they have, it is the septuagenarians and octogenarians who have the final saying in it.
This fact is more consequential than it seems. To explain why, let me introduce the following idea:
Every society is a multiracial society, for every generation is a new race
Although we tend to imagine them as cohesive, all these countries are multigenerational -> multiracial
In 1927, when Trotsky was being expelled from the Boslhevik Party, the atmosphere was very and very heated. One cavalry commander met Stalin at the stairs and threatened to cut off his ears. He even pretended he is unsheathing he sabre to proceed
Stalin shut up and said nothing
Like obviously, everyone around could see Stalin is super angry. But he still said nothing and did nothing
Which brings us to an important point:
Nobody becomes powerful accidentally
If Joseph Stalin seized the absolute control over the Communist Party, and the Soviet Union, the most plausible explanation is that Joseph Stalin is exercising some extremely rare virtues, that almost nobody on the planet Earth is capable of
Highly virtuous man, almost to the impossible level
Growing up in Russia in the 1990s, I used to put America on a pedestal. It was not so much a conscious decision, as the admission of an objective fact of reality. It was the country of future, the country thinking about the future, and marching into the future.
And nothing reflected this better than the seething hatred it got from Russia, a country stuck in the past, whose imagination was fully preoccupied with the injuries of yesterday, and the phantasies of terrible revenge, usually in the form of nuclear strike.
Which, of course, projected weakness rather than strength
We will make a huuuuuuge bomb, and drop it onto your heads, and turn you into the radioactive dust, and you will die in agony, and we will be laughing and clapping our hands
Fake jobs are completely normal & totally natural. The reason is: nobody understands what is happening and most certainly does not understand why. Like people, including the upper management have some idea of what is happening in an organisation, and this idea is usually wrong.
As they do not know and cannot know causal relations between the input and output, they just try to increase some sort of input, in a hope for a better output, but they do not really know which input to increase.
Insiders with deep & specific knowledge, on the other hand, may have a more clear & definite idea of what is happening, and even certain, non zero degree of understanding of causal links between the input and output
I have recently read someone comparing Trump’s tariffs with collectivisation in the USSR. I think it is an interesting comparison. I don’t think it is exactly the same thing of course. But I indeed think that Stalin’s collectivisation offers an interesting metaphor, a perspective to think about
But let’s make a crash intro first
1. The thing you need to understand about the 1920s USSR is that it was an oligarchic regime. It was not strictly speaking, an autocracy. It was a power of few grandees, of the roughly equal rank.
2. Although Joseph Stalin established himself as the single most influential grandee by 1925, that did not make him a dictator. He was simply the most important guy out there. Otherwise, he was just one of a few. He was not yet the God Emperor he would become later.