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
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