This remark may sound as an exaggeration but I find it astute. Russia is more personalist than the (post-Stalin) USSR. It is also in many respects more centralised. For example, a separate Siloviki hierarchy unanswerable to the regional authorities is the post-Soviet innovation
In Russia all the people with guns/badges are answerable only to Moscow. Police, Investigation Committee, Prosecutors, FSB and the National Guard of course. All the law enforcement/warrior cops are 100% centralised, governors have no authority over them
Not the case in the USSR
In the (post-Stalin) USSR nomenklatura hold a tight grip over the ppl with guns and often did it on the regional level. Not only were the regular cops answerable to the regional/republican Party committee, but even the military commanders could be integrated into the latter
In other words, in the USSR the civilian hierarchy (nomenklatura) was not separated from the ppl with guns. Cops, prosecutors, etc. were answerable to the *local* Party committee, who basically owned the cops. And even with the military there could be a degree of integration
In modern Russia however, the government made sure that the regional authorities have 0 ppl with guns under their command. Like absolutely zero. In the last year, even the last gubernatorial bodyguard services were disbanded. Now every governor is guarded by the National Guard
The full separation of the people-with-guns hierarchy from the civilian hierarchy with the full centralisation of command over the former is not a Soviet, but a Russian innovation. Non-ideological, low trust and personalist regime won’t allow anyone to have a single gunman under
When you think of nomenklatura, think of Krang and of a fractal kind of Krang. In every city, region, republic, etc. there sat a Krang who ran everything including the gunmen. Yes, dictatorial rule. But also collective, institutionalised and relatively decentralised
Now the funny thing about modern Russia is that there is no nomenklatura anymore. The Krang is dead. Yes, the state security took over but it did not take over in a same way. Modern Russia is extremely personalist -> fragile. It just cannot afford a shadow of decentralisation
• • •
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.