No. Describing Russian regime as "kleptocracy" is misrepresentation. It's not technically false, just absurdly reductionist. Let's be honest, if Putinism was *entirely* about stealing it would not be able to wage wars or produce armaments. And it produces hella lots of them
Keep in mind that public rhetorics work according to the rhetorical logic. Public position doesn't have to be factually accurate, it has to be rhetorically advantageous for it to work. They talk about "corruption" so much because it's rhetorically advantageous. That's it
When you don't have a positive agenda/vision of future or it's too hideous, you talk about "corruption". Examples - Lukashenko or Yeltsin. "Anti-corruption fight" is an ideal topic for a power hungry politician. Because talking about corruption = avoiding the actual conversation
"Fight on corruption" is so rhetorically advantageous for three reasons. First, you avoid talking about your positive agenda. Second, because it's an ideal tool to concentrate power, destroying all other interest groups (like Xi Jinping) and grab an absolute power for just one
Third, because normal people on street have no idea about the motivation of those higher up. They're so stressed with the constant need to pay their bill and fight for survival, that they simply can't imagine the motivations of people who just don't have these concerns at all
Almost everyone in this world is living on the edge of poverty. Fear of poverty and struggle for money largely shapes the motivations of almost all humans. Ergo, the motivations of people who just don't have this fear are unimaginable. Like ofc they just want money, what else?
I strongly believe that the higher you go on the socio-economic ladder, the more does the structure of motivations change. Yes, ofc they grab money, lots of it. But it's very, very easy. You probably very much overestimate how much of a concern it is for those higher up
One guy (he'd later become a Russian Deputy PM) responded to a similar remark:
- Yes. Power is substantial (субстанциональна). It's not a means, it's a goal
I 100% believe him. Those who claim that rulers of Russia are there to steal are either ignorant or lying intentionally
The entire discourse about "corruption" and attempts to portray absolute rulers as just thieves are so successful, because they're factually wrong. They relate with the common's man neverending concern about money and paying the bills. But the rulers don't have this concern
Let's be honest, if Putin was all about money, this war wouldn't happen. My friend recently admitted he was wrong about Putin:
"I thought Putin regretted that he involved in Ukraine in 2014. Now I understand that his only regret is that he didn't go all the way back in 2014"
Also. Russian regime can be very functional in those few spheres it priorities. In the piece time it was obvious with railways. In a largely dysfunctional country they worked perfectly. Because it was a priority
In the war time, that is obvious with missiles. They prioritised quantity of them, sacrificing most of the R&D, home production and equipment and components and just fully switching to imports. They also sacrificed variety, keeping just very few models, far less than the Soviets
Putin's war machine is a very reduced version of a Soviet machine. It's far more centralised, more vertical integrated. It has little of the Soviet variety of models and almost zero of the Soviet technological chains. It fully depends on import. Because it prioritised *quantity*
Putinism is *efficient* when it wants and needs to be efficient. In the war context it needs to produce hella lots of shells and missiles here and now (fuck the future, fuck R&D, fuck import substitution). That's reductionist. But it's efficient. And it's not just a "kleptocracy"
Picturing Putinist regime as just a "kleptocracy" and "corruption" as the single most important problem sounds brave. But it's intentional or unintentional misrepresentation of a real situation while systematically avoiding the discussion on how are we gonna get out of it
There are indeed extremely kleptocratic elements among the Russian elites. These are:
1) Siloviki (FSB, MVD, prosecutors, investigators). Much of it just business 2) Many of Putin's friends
The level of corruption of the bulk of bureaucracy is hugely exaggerated in my opinion
Example. A major bank CEO is looking how can he get in contact with some ministry official. He makes decisions of life and death for his business. But he doesn't know how to get closer to him. Then he tells about his problem to one of his secretaries:
"Not a problem at all. Every Friday we drink at the same bar" resounds secretary
Official has a huge power over a bank CEO. But his incomes are more like CEO's secretary than a CEO himself. CEO just doesn't go to such cheap bars as a person who has power over him
There's a massive power Vs money asymmetry in Russia. It may be less visible than let's say in England but still shows that the power is not cashed out nearly as massively as some journalists or politicians would suggest
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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
People don’t really understand causal links. We pretend we do (“X results in Y”). But we actually don’t. Most explanations (= descriptions of causal structures) are fake.
There may be no connection between X and Y at all. The cause is just misattributed.
Or, perhaps, X does indeed result in Y. but only under a certain (and unknown!) set of conditions that remains totally and utterly opaque to us. So, X->Y is only a part of the equation
And so on
I like to think of a hypothetical Stone Age farmer who started farming, and it worked amazingly, and his entire community adopted his lifestyle, and many generations followed it and prospered and multiplied, until all suddenly wiped out in a new ice age
1. Normative Islamophobia that used to define the public discourse being the most acceptable form of racial & ethnic bigotry in the West, is receding. It is not so much dying as rather - failing to replicate. It is not that the old people change their views as that the young do not absorb their prejudice any longer.
In fact, I incline to think it has been failing to replicate for a while, it is just that we have not been paying attention
Again, the change of vibe does not happen at once. The Muslim scare may still find (some) audience among the more rigid elderly, who are not going to change their views. But for the youth, it is starting to sound as archaic as the Catholic scare of know nothings
Out of date
2. What is particularly interesting regarding Mamdani's victory, is his support base. It would not be much of an exaggeration to say that its core is comprised of the young (and predominantly white) middle classes, with a nearly equal representation of men and women
What does Musk vs Trump affair teach us about the general patterns of human history? Well, first of all it shows that the ancient historians were right. They grasped something about nature of politics that our contemporaries simply can’t.
Let me give you an example. The Arab conquest of Spain
According to a popular medieval/early modern interpretation, its primary cause was the lust of Visigoth king Roderic. Aroused by the beautiful daughter of his vassal and ally, count Julian, he took advantage of her
Disgruntled, humiliated Julian allied himself with the Arabs and opens them the gates of Spain.
Entire kingdom lost, all because the head of state caused a personal injury to someone important.