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
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
There's a subtle point here that 99,999% of Western commentariat is missing. Like, totally blind to. And that point is:
Building a huuuuuuuuuuge dam (or steel plant, or whatever) has been EVERYONE's plan of development. Like absolutely every developing country, no exceptions
Almost everyone who tried to develop did it in a USSR-ish way, via prestige projects. Build a dam. A steel plant. A huge plant. And then an even bigger one
And then you run out of money, and it all goes bust and all you have is postapocalyptic ruins for the kids to play in
If China did not go bust, in a way like almost every development project from the USSR to South Asia did, that probably means that you guys are wrong about China. Like totally wrong
What you describe is not China but the USSR, and its copies & emulations elsewhere
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)