Overall, you can expect tech moguls to have much, much higher level of reasoning abilities compared to the political/administrative class. But this comes at a cost. Their capacities for understanding the Other (masses count as the “Other”) are much poorer.
E.g. Putin is much, much less of an outlier in terms of intelligence compared to Thiel. He is much more average. At the same time, I am positively convinced that Putin understands the masses and works with masses much better.
Putin understands: when you go fishing you think of what the fish likes, not what you like. You may prefer blueberries, but fish likes worms. So you take worms, not the blueberries.
I am not sure Thiel (or others) understand that
E.g. Putin is highly critical of Lenin and the early Bolsheviks (who destroyed the unity of Russia), while holding much more positive view of Stalin (who restored it). But Lenin’s cult is so deeply woven into the culture (esp. for the elderly) that Putin chooses not to fight it
Time after time, at nearly every big meeting he makes negative remarks about Lenin (for federalizing and autonomizing Russia). At the same time, he does nothing to fight his cult. Actually, in Donbass Russian authorities restore Lenin’s monuments, rename streets after Lenin, etc
So, Putin strongly dislikes Lenin and his legacy. But the Russian state does nothing to fight his cult. It actually expands and buttresses it whenever convenient. Why? Because it goes well for the population. For them, Lenin is just an element of generic patriotism & nostalgia
To put it simply, Putin sees Lenin as “bad”, destructive and anti-patriotic. But Putin’s support base, the elderly, are used to see him as “good”, constructive and patriotic. And they are not going to change their opinion. They will hold their beliefs & prejudices till death.
So, if Putin started “Lenin bad” campaign (based on what he actually thinks), the only thing he would achieve is confusing and disorienting his own supporters. That’s why he is not doing that.
He doesn’t fight Lenin’s cult. He is actually doing the opposite. In his conquest in Ukraine, he is harnessing and exploiting said cult, rallying the people around it, appealing to the Lenin’s name and legitimacy. Why? Because it works.
For Putin, Stalin > Lenin
But for internal propaganda purposes, Lenin works better. He is much less divisive, more unobjectionable. There are relatively few genuine haters.
Putin is such a hater. But, when he goes fishing, he thinks of what the fish likes. So Lenin it is.
Thinking of what you like vs Thinking of what the fish likes
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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)
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