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
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.