We presume that history moves by "reasonable" things happening. More importantly though, it moves through crazy stuff nobody had expected. That stuff may seem reasonable now, retrospectively, but previously it would have been dismissed as impossible/improbable. Until it happened
That's crucial for understanding both economy and politics. In fact, many seemingly reasonable scenarios had not happened and won't happen *exactly* because they are too reasonable = foreseeable = preventable. Consider the October Revolution. It happened *because* it was insane
In March 1917 Tsar was overthrown and a coalition of various oppositional forces became the Provisional Government. What could they legitimately fear? A military coup and a subsequent military dictatorship ofc. Experience of English and French revolutions suggested exactly that
A reasonable analyst would've said that it is the Commander-in-Chief General Kornilov whom the Prime Minister Kerensky should legitimately fear. Indeed, the military dictatorship by Kornilov looked very plausible in summer 1917. That's why Kerensky made every effort to prevent it
Indeed, in September 1917 Kornilov attempted a military coup. Kerensky had foreseen it. He mobilised all political forces to stand against Kornilov. Including the Bolsheviks ofc. The government encouraged and assisted the mass expansion & armament of the Bolshevik paramilitary
In November 1917 Provisional Government was overthrown by a coalition of the radical left military & paramilitary, including the Bolsheviks, the anarchists, the left Socialist Revolutionaries, etc. Whose build-up the same government had encouraged just a couple of months before
October Revolution is not an exception. It is a rule. Very often, probably more often than not, a power is overthrown by those they helped, promoted, assisted, rather than by those whom they persecuted severely. Because those whom they persecuted for real had been selected out
Provisional government feared a new Bonaparte. So it prevenedt this scenario. It didn't fear the Bolsheviks that much. In September they even tried to weaponise them against Kornilov. Two months later, they were overthrown by those they had tried to weaponise. Many such cases!
Reasonable scenario had been prevented. Therefore, the unreasonable and absurd scenario turned into reality. Because it was so absurd, that the old powers did not even put much effort into preventing it. They tried to use Bolsheviks as a tool and the tool backfired
Picturing the October Revolution as purely Bolshevik is wrong. It was a broad assabiyah of various radical left that overthrew the government. In several years, Bolsheviks cleansed them all. They hadn't seen it coming either. That was too absurd to even consider. Thus it happened
History doesn't move by likely and reasonable stuff happening. In fact, those in power put great effort into preventing the negative (from their perspective) *reasonable* scenarios and usually succeed. That's why the dumb and unreasonable stuff becomes the game changer. The end
• • •
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.