Russia invades Ukraine

[keenir]

I'm curious how democracy could have improved the agricultural revolution there. Also, are you referring to Lysenko's revolution in most things plant-related, or to another incident in Soviet history?

I assume RB refers to the same things I've also been referring to in my posts - the fact that the Bolsheviks first redistributed land from the big landholders to the farmers (which was popular), but then destroyed it all by forcing those farmers into collective farms, killing successful farmers (the so-called kulaks) and creating shortages in the short run. and an inefficient, underperforming system in the long run. If the Bolsheviks would have been more democratic, they would have accepted that most farmers did not want to join the cooperative farms and instead could have encouraged other forms of cooperation to create economies of scale, like machine parks etc.

Just another reason why, if socialism is to be successful, democracy is essential. Without democracy there will be those at the top who will inevitably ruin things, even if their intentions are good.

the trick with democracy - whether in socialist systems or elsewhere - is to avoid populism and mob rule. the latter is part of why some of my ancestors had to flee Tsarist Russia.

[Travis B.]

the trick with democracy - whether in socialist systems or elsewhere - is to avoid populism and mob rule. the latter is part of why some of my ancestors had to flee Tsarist Russia.

Populism may be a potential issue with democracy, but the lack of democracy is still worse as a whole, and not having democracy does not rule out populism anyways in the first place, as authoritarians seek to control the populace through resorting to populism.

[keenir]

the trick with democracy - whether in socialist systems or elsewhere - is to avoid populism and mob rule. the latter is part of why some of my ancestors had to flee Tsarist Russia.

Populism may be a potential issue with democracy, but the lack of democracy is still worse ata whole, and not having democracy does not rule out populism anyways in the first place, as authoritarians seek to control the populace through resorting to populism.

quite very true, all the points you raised.

[Linguoboy]

So do any close observers of German politics want to clue me in to what's going on with Beleidigte Leberwurst's refusal to visit Zelensky? Is he just that thin-skinned or is there some domestic political calculation which escapes the untrained eye here?

[Raphael]

So do any close observers of German politics want to clue me in to what's going on with Beleidigte Leberwurst's refusal to visit Zelensky? Is he just that think-skinned or is there some domestic political calculation which escapes the untrained eye here?

Not that I can think of - there's simply the idea that it would be inappropriate for the Chancellor to visit a place that dis-invited the President.

[Travis B.]

The crisis in die Linke by Paul Mason - I have to say that this is a leftist that I can really agree with.

[Travis B.]

And this is what our friends at WSWS have to say about him - which is somehow not surprising.

[Ares Land]

I can't say I really disagree with Mason. That said, he does bring up 'Leninism' or even 'Stalinism' surprisingly often. I don't know German politics very well, really, but does Die Linke really call itself even Marxist?

[hwhatting]

I can't say I really disagree with Mason. That said, he does bring up 'Leninism' or even 'Stalinism' surprisingly often. I don't know German politics very well, really, but does Die Linke really call itself even Marxist?

I don't follow the politics of the Linke closely. From what you hear them saying in the media, they have positons to the left of the mainstream (on redistribution, taxes, welfare, disarmamament), but they don't usually invoke Marx or Lenin. But a big part of their organisation, especially in the East where they are strongest, goes back to the PDS (Party of Democratic Socialism) which is a successor of the former ruling Party of the GDR, and in the West many of their members come from various Marxist / Communist / Socialist groups.

[Moose-tache]

And this is what our friends at WSWS have to say about him - which is somehow not surprising.

An examination of Mason’s writings makes clear the political character of [Ukraine Solidarity Campaign,] a campaign portrayed in the media as “anti-war,” but which is aimed at paving the way for an imperialist war for regime change in Russia that threatens a nuclear conflict.

That's what people are really pushing for when they oppose an expansionist war in Eastern Europe with possible nuclear outcomes: an expansionist war in Eastern Europe with possible nuclear outcomes. Obviously.

(also I did a tweet)

[Raphael]

An examination of Mason’s writings makes clear the political character of [Ukraine Solidarity Campaign,] a campaign portrayed in the media as “anti-war,” but which is aimed at paving the way for an imperialist war for regime change in Russia that threatens a nuclear conflict.

Yeah, sure, of course people are going to be dumb enough to start a regime change war against Russia. And of course you can determine what the political leadership of the Western World is planning to do by examining the writings of some obscure guy on the internet.

Besides, what are they trying to say when they say "makes clear the political character of"? Everything people do, say, or write that relates to world events has a "political character" of some kind. So what?

[Ares Land]

Oh, it's the usual kind of semantically empty struggle session that is, unfortunately, to be found all too often in certain far-left circles.

[Travis B.]

People like the bright minds behind the WSWS and the DSA sometimes make me embarrassed to be a leftist...

[Raphael]

Then again, there's no political camp under the sun that you could join without sometimes feeling embarrassed about some of the people you share it with...

[Raphael]

I've recently thought a bit more about something that zompist, now more than a month ago, posted in the "Predictions for 2301" thread over in the Conlangery forum. It's pretty much entirely about Putin and people like him, so I thought it makes more sense to respond here than in that thread.

Reactionary regimes are fragile and tend to blow themselves up relatively quickly. (Which may be of little consolation to those caught in the explosion.)

I wish I could share this optimism. I don't see any of the world's current reactionary regimes collapsing any time soon. Sure, some did over the past 20 years, but the others have learned their lessons from that.

Who learned what lessons now? Look at Putin-- his whole problem is that hasn't learned any lessons, and created a system for not learning lessons. No one is allowed to tell him how bad things are. And because of that, he's fucked up his invasion, his economy, and his hopes for defanging NATO. He'll be lucky to last out the year.

It's true that Putin has probably put himself into a position where the people on whom he relies for information about what's happening in the world won't dare to tell him the kinds of things that he needs to hear but doesn't want to hear, and that therefore, he will more and more lose contact with reality. But I think that at least to some extent, he's so powerful that he's immune to outside reality.

Has he really fucked up his invasion? Yes, it's not going according to plan, and his troops are advancing a lot slower than he had hoped they would. But, that said, they seem to be advancing steadily, even if slowly. We keep hearing about this or that place being captured by the Russians after heavy fighting. It's getting rarer and rarer that we hear about the Ukrainians advancing anywhere. It seems perfectly well possible that in hindsight, the first months of Russia's war against Ukraine will look like the initial phase of the Second Boer War, when the Boers had some surprising initial successes for a while, and ended up being conquered anyway.

And if this all ends with him controlling Ukraine, no one knows what he will do next.

Has he really fucked up his economy? For the moment, perhaps. But keep in mind that he is closely allied with one of the strongest economies in the world, China. If they buy everything he wants to sell to them, and perhaps give him some money for free on top of that, he won't have to worry about economic matters for a while.

He'll be lucky to last out the year? What? Who's supposed to move against him? The Russian generals? They're probably all being watched very closely, and sometimes you hear about some of them being sent into early retirement or put under house arrest. That's what I meant by "learned their lessons". The Russian oligarchs? They're hated by everyone except Putin himself, and they can't do anything without support from other power centers, which they don't have. The Russian general public? They're overwhelmingly behind him, safely under the control of the psychological poison of jingoistic nationalism. Outside forces? Nope; with Russia having thousands of nukes, that would be the end of the world, so I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to try that.

No, given the possibility that Putin might push the red button in a fit of rage, if there's anyone who'll be "lucky to last out the year", it's all of us.

[zompist]

It's getting rarer and rarer that we hear about the Ukrainians advancing anywhere.

This is simply untrue; I suspect you're looking at major news sites and not the sources that update the war every day. Ukraine has been advancing toward Kherson and from Kharkiv, and just a day or two ago they recaptured a large part of Severodonetsk.

It seems perfectly well possible that in hindsight, the first months of Russia's war against Ukraine will look like the initial phase of the Second Boer War, when the Boers had some surprising initial successes for a while, and ended up being conquered anyway.

How? In three months he has conquered just two major cities (Kherson and Mariupol). What is he supposed to conquer the whole country with? Russia has lost something like 1/4 of its available tanks and at least 20,000 soldiers. They never established air control, and they are running out of missiles. Their advances in the last month are measured in kilometers per day, with heavy losses. And the Ukrainian strategy all along has been to trade space for time.

But keep in mind that he is closely allied with one of the strongest economies in the world, China.

China has been holding Putin at arm's length. We undoubtedly don't know exactly what's going on, but China has been wary about triggering sanctions on itself.

He'll be lucky to last out the year? What? Who's supposed to move against him?

Again, I recommend reading Kamil Galeev. There's a lot of material by now, but there are some deep analyses of how Russia works— and where the actual threats would come from.

https://threadreaderapp.com/user/kamilkazani

[Raphael]

Again, I recommend reading Kamil Galeev. There's a lot of material by now, but there are some deep analyses of how Russia works— and where the actual threats would come from.

https://threadreaderapp.com/user/kamilkazani

Not sure about your other points, but this is very interesting.


https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1533 ... 72066.html

Wow.

[Linguoboy]

Has he really fucked up his economy? For the moment, perhaps. But keep in mind that he is closely allied with one of the strongest economies in the world, China. If they buy everything he wants to sell to them, and perhaps give him some money for free on top of that, he won't have to worry about economic matters for a while.

I guess if Russia's ultimate goal has always been to have an extractive economy geared solely toward selling raw materials to he Chinese this counts as "not fucking up". But it seems to me it used to have more ambitious goals than that. However, it's tough to be a leader in the information age when anyone with tech skills who can make it elsewhere is fleeing. Russia was already facing a dire shortage of highly-skilled workers before this fiasco and it's made that incalculably worse. Putin's not just doing temporary damage to the economy. Basically, the myth Western powers have been telling themselves for thirty years that Russia can be made into a team player by integrating it into the global economy has been exposed for the sham it always was. The multinational conglomerates who have gotten out over the past year aren't just going to waltz back in the day a cease-fire is declared. Those educated workers and that investment is mostly gone for good, and even if the Chinese were willing to restore it all, I don't see the Russians willing to let that happen.

[zompist]

Who's supposed to move against him?

I didn't have time earlier to respond fully to this. Granted, dictators can insulate themselves from consequences for a long long time. On the other hand, what happened to Hitler, to Ceausescu, to Saddam, to Mussolini, to Gaddafi, to Samuel Doe? How many strongmen are pushed out by another strongman? Like the similar profession of Mafia don, it's a risky role to jump into.

When we see pictures of Putin, they show a comical degree of paranoia: he's sitting 20 feet away from anyone else, holding the table in a death grip. Of course he takes precautions, he's paranoid, he will send the security services after anyone he doesn't feel is loyal. Who executes those orders for him? There is no such thing as a dictator who does everything by himself. And there is no one a dictator needs to keep happy more than that retinue of people immediately around him. Putin is not an army guy-- he distrusts the army, he's hobbled the army and generals who are too successful are literally killed. Putin is KGB, now FSB guy. The people he relies on are FSB; if anyone takes him out, it's probably them. Are they happy? Will they be forever?

Or read this (long, sorry) page on Ramzan Kadyrov, Putin's personal thug. He runs Chechnya as his personal fief-- his soldiers are loyal to him, not to Putin. And he personally is loyal to Putin. If you're a dictator, you need a personal thug like Kadyrov, one indebted to you personally and not beholden to anyone in the government. And yet-- look at history. If your personal thug isn't happy, what do you think he does?

Finally, it's worth pointing out that Putin is 69 and there have been persistent rumors of poor health, possibly including cancer. Maybe this isn't an issue for him for a few years; but it can also change the calculus of those in a position to act.

[Raphael]

Who's supposed to move against him?

I didn't have time earlier to respond fully to this. Granted, dictators can insulate themselves from consequences for a long long time. On the other hand, what happened to Hitler, to Ceausescu, to Saddam, to Mussolini, to Gaddafi, to Samuel Doe?

You're right about Ceausescu, Mussolini, Samuel Doe, and arguably Gaddafi. Hitler and Saddam, OTOH, survived (though in Hitler's case after a close call) until their countries were militarily conquered by foreign powers. Which is not going to happen to Russia.

When we see pictures of Putin, they show a comical degree of paranoia: he's sitting 20 feet away from anyone else, holding the table in a death grip.

Galeev seems to think that he's simply afraid of Covid.

Putin is KGB, now FSB guy. The people he relies on are FSB; if anyone takes him out, it's probably them. Are they happy? Will they be forever?

I don't see why they wouldn't be happy with him. And, Galeev has talked about a kind of exodus of various VIPs from Russia - any members of his entourage unhappy with him might be more likely to leave then to act against him.

Or read this (long, sorry) page on Ramzan Kadyrov, Putin's personal thug. He runs Chechnya as his personal fief-- his soldiers are loyal to him, not to Putin. And he personally is loyal to Putin. If you're a dictator, you need a personal thug like Kadyrov, one indebted to you personally and not beholden to anyone in the government. And yet-- look at history. If your personal thug isn't happy, what do you think he does?

Kadyrov is probably the best known one of Putin's thugs, but I doubt that he's the only one. Galeev seems to think that he is completely dependent on Putin, because, if Putin were gone, many of Kadyrov's fellow ethnic Chechens would try to settle their scores with him. Kadyrov is from an ethnic minority and at least theoretically a Muslim (not being a Muslim myself, I won't comment on how good or bad a Muslim he is), which probably means that if he'd try to move against Putin, he'd be instantly completely isolated - ethnic Russians of all classes and subgroups would never accept him as a leader.

Finally, it's worth pointing out that Putin is 69 and there have been persistent rumors of poor health, possibly including cancer. Maybe this isn't an issue for him for a few years; but it can also change the calculus of those in a position to act.

My Mom is in her seventies, and aside from the fact that she gets tired more often and more easily than she used to, there aren't any clear signs of her age yet - if you'd meet her, you might well guess that she's 20 years younger. Sure, she's certainly a much, much better human being than Putin, but I don't think that that kind of thing has medical effects. My point is, "69" probably doesn't mean what it used to mean anymore - not what it meant when you were growing up or even when I was growing up. In your various aging-related blog posts, you yourself seemed to claim that really serious decay tends to start at around 90 these days. Robert Mugabe stayed in power until he was 93, and he was from an earlier generation than Putin.