No one gets famous by accident. If Alexey @Navalny rose as the unalternative leader of Russian opposition, recognised as such both in Moscow and in DC, this indicates he had something that others lacked. Today we will discuss what it was and why it did not suffice 🧵
Let's start with the public image. What was so special about the (mature) @navalny is that his public image represented normality. And by normality I mean first and foremost the American, Hollywood normality
Look at this photo. He represents himself as American politicians do
For an American politician, it is very important to present himself as a good family man (or woman). Exceptions do only corroborate the rule. Notice how McCain defends @BarackObama
"No, he's a decent family man, citizen"
In America one thing is tied with another
I am making a special focus on the political significance of family, because it is unusual. It is a peculiar aspect of the American political culture, that most other cultures do not share (or at least not to the same extent)
Personal = political
There's no boundary in between
If American politicians must have a family, if they must show their family, if they must brand themselves as familymen and sell their familymanship in the course of an electoral campaign (while most politicians around the world don't have to), now there's a good reason for that
Political origins of America are very peculiar, and different from those of Europe. Unlike most European states, America has never been a monarchy. As a result, it is less affected by the monarchic, and more by the theocratic institutions
POTUS is not a King. He is a Presbyter
This is one singular reason why their family life (and sexual life) are of such immense political significance. US President is first and foremost a priest. A shepherd guiding his flock, a minister instructing his parish. He must serve as an example of Protestant purity
Now to understand America, you must realise it is unusual. It is peculiar. It is like a National Covenant winning, and winning on a global scale. Once it has won a global hegemony, we tend to underestimate how unusual it is
America is more of an exception, than the rule
Now one major difference between the American and Russian political culture is that the family does not normally bring a bonus point to Russian politicians
It is probably the other way around. Going around with your wife, showing her to the public generates the active hate
What do you see? I see a washing rag. Weak, pathetic "Tsar" who allows himself to be dominated by his wife. If he can't control her, he can't control anyone. Obviously, he destroys the empire he is supposed to lead
He would be much better off sending the bitch to the monastery
Public imagination tends to associate an influential wife with the unacceptable weakness, getting us all destroyed (Nicholas II, Gorbachev). In contrast, better, stronger leaders tend to be single. No wife, good life
Or at the very least, do not show her to the public too much
Contrary to the US perception, Putin's personal life does not damage his public standing in Russia. It's probably the other way around
1. Divorced -> Strong, independent man 2. Keep your gf far from Kremlin -> Again, strong & independent 3. She is pretty -> You must be straight
As a general rule, Russian public has been extremely negative about the spouses/children of a ruler holding any political influence at all. When discussing the filth & corruption of Yeltsin's rule, what do we say? The Family (Семья).
The epitome of all the evil in the country
When Kremlin tried to compromise the oppositional leader Nemtsov as a womanizer (which he was), that was dumb. Basically, Kremlin portrayed him as a Saint Chad 😎. Like he used to be the Deputy Prime Minister of Russia and girls is all you could find?
He is Jesus, literally 😇
Navalny may have been the first politician in Russia who branded himself in American fasion. He was the first to present himself as a "good family man" and to advance his family on a political scene with any degree of success
For Russia, it is a major political innovation
A taste for political innovation, that's what Navalny had. He experimented with forms, with styles, with platforms. He was good at it. He correctly realised that much of the urban population has a demand on more up-to-date, "Western" style politics and was willing to fulfill it
I personally have been always sceptical of Navalny's movement. Yet many, very many in my Moscow circles of friends were fascinated. For many, it felt like a breath of the fresh air in the otherwise suffocating atmosphere of late Putinism
For many, Navalny's death feels like a personal catastrophe. Like the destruction of the world. For many, he was literally the Prince Who is Promised. His struggle, suffering, failures, were all parts of a story arc that must have culminated in a victory
He couldn't just die
Like, in 2023 I was chatting with a good and old friend now living abroad. He was talking about the future President Navalny, and Minister Guriev and how all the ministries will be distributed in a new cabinet
He is a smart man. And he was talking with 100% certainty
Now this brings us to another quality Navalny had, and others did not. Confidence. The absolute, 100% confidence, and the ability to inspire it in others. Yes, Navalnism is a cult. But it takes rare and precious qualities to build one
Increasingly rare qualities, I would say
We know that Navalny's return to Russia turned out to be suicidal. Therefore, we may struggle to comprehend why he did it in the first place. The thing is that we know it retrospectively. Back then, nobody could know it with a 100% degree of certainty
Nobody knows the future
The most likely explanation is that Navalny believed in his promise. He knew he was going to survive and overcome, that all the troubles will be merely a nuisance on his way to the victory. If he lacked confidence himself, it would be very difficult for him to convince others
That being said, Navalny's movement had strong and probably irreparable drawbacks that made its ascent to power highly unlikely. Today, I discussed the strong sides, next time I will do the shortcomings
The end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
For decades, any resistance to the Reaganomics has been suppressed using the false dichotomy: it is either “capitalism” (= which meant Reaganomics) or socialism, and socialism doesn’t work
Now, as there is the growing feeling that Reaganomics don’t work, the full rehabilitation of socialism looks pretty much inevitable
I find it oddly similar to how it worked in the USSR. For decades, the whole propaganda apparatus had been advancing the false dichotomy: it is either socialism, or capitalism (= meaning robber barons)
Now, as there is a growing feeling that the current model does not work, we must try out capitalism instead. And, as capitalism means robber barons, we must create robber barons
We have to distribute all the large enterprises between the organized crime members. This is the way
Truth is: the words like Rus/Russian had many and many ambiguous and often mutually exclusive meanings, and not only throughout history, but, like, simultaneously.
For example, in the middle ages, the word "Rus" could mean:
1. All the lands that use Church Slavonic in liturgy. That is pretty much everything from what is now Central Russia, to what is now Romania. Wallachians, being the speakers of a Romance language were Orthodox, and used Slavonic in church -> they're a part of Rus, too
2. Some ambiguous, undefined region that encompasses what is now northwest Russia & Ukraine, but does not include lands further east. So, Kiev & Novgorod are a part of Rus, but Vladimir (-> region of Moscow) isn't
These two mutually exclusive notions exist simultaneously
The greatest Western delusion about China is, and always has been, greatly exaggerating the importance of plan. Like, in this case, for example. It sounds as if there is some kind of continuous industrial policy, for decades
1. Mao Zedong dies. His successors be like, wow, he is dead. Now we can build a normal, sane economy. That means, like in the Soviet Union
2. Fuck, we run out of oil. And the entire development plan was based upon an assumption that we have huge deposits of it
3. All the prior plans of development, and all the prior industrial policies go into the trashbin. Because again, they were based upon an assumption that we will be soon exporting more oil than Saudi Arabia, and without that revenue we cannot fund our mega-projects
Yes. Behind all the breaking news about the capture of small villages, we are missing the bigger pattern which is:
The Soviet American war was supposed to be fought to somewhere to the west of Rhine. What you got instead is a Soviet Civil War happening to the east of Dnieper
If you said that the battles of the great European war will not be fought in Dunkirk and La Rochelle, but somewhere in Kupyansk (that is here) and Rabotino, you would have been once put into a psych ward, or, at least, not taken as a serious person
The behemoth military machine had been built, once, for a thunderbolt strike towards the English Channel. Whatever remained from it, is now decimating itself in the useless battles over the useless coal towns of the Donetsk Oblast
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