Russian regionalist Media «7x7. Horizontal Russia» compiled a map of attacks on the military commissariats (draft & recruiting stations) all over Russia from Feb 24 to May 31, 2022. Unlike most of what passes for "liberal Russian media" in the West, this one isn't based in Moscow
«7x7. Horizontal Russia» was established in the northern Komi republic. Having expanded to dozens of Russian regions it still keeps its regional focus. They do massive work on the ground that remains virtually unnoticed in the West semnasem.org
I'm inclined to think that the focus of Western journalists, politicians and (let's be honest) researchers on everything Moscow-related at the expense of the rest of the country is motivated not only by their implicit biases or prejudices but also by simple laziness
How come that the Western media pay nearly zero attention to a wildly successful regional initiative?
1. They're biased 2. They're lazy
And they lack self awareness to realize either of this
Look whom the Western media are quoting and interviewing. Almost always it will be the representatives of a closely interconnected political&media ecosystem of Moscow tusovochka. Those who work in the province get almost zero coverage no matter how much they are doing
Interestingly enough the same Westerners usually can reflect their own biases and prejudices when it comes to their own country. But for some reason they lose their ability when it comes to the Eastern Europe. The can't overcome their basis because they don't know it exists
Why do Westerners give voice only to the Moscow tusovochka? My guess:
1. It's easy 2. It's pleasant. Tusovochka usually has that social polish that will make Westerners feel good. And feeling good is the priority here 2. They think they can add some positive knowledge this way
It's delusion for most part. I would argue that talking to, writing about, quoting the Moscow tusovochka has negative rather than positive value for the progress of knowledge. You give additional representation to people and institutions which are already wildly overrepresented
Giving additional platform and additional representation to the already wildly overrepresented Moscow establishment skewes the already existing bias even further. You are not helping, you are making things worse. Just stop it
Instead of quoting the Moscow media how about quoting the regional ones such as 7*7? Instead of quoting the Moscow politicians and activists how about quoting the regional ones which currently have almost no voice and no representation in the West at all? End of thread
PS Moscow's domination over the regions is not "natural". It's constructed. And its key element is the cultural hegemony which largely results from Moscow being almost the sole intermediary with the West (with the single exception of StP). This cycle must be broken
When you give additional platform and additional voice to Moscow you reinforce its cultural hegemony over the regions. You increase its status and its symbolic capital. You reinforce the current imperial system. It's a political act
• • •
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.