He’s got a point:
The only former USSR republic never referred to as “post-soviet” or “former soviet” is russia. The other 14 countries are not just called that but always framed in their relations with russia. @maniamakash
What he’s talking about is the intellectual tradition among Western political analysts and journalists to describe as “former Soviet” any country that 40 years ago was part of #USSR (e.g. Ukraine) or even in Eastern Bloc (e.g. Poland, Romania). But they never describe Russia as “former Soviet republic” even if what today makes #Russia was in USSR literally called “Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic” (RSFSR) 🤷
@kravietz @maniamakash And even worse, some people (hardly professional analysts and journalists though) use the adjective “Soviet” when referring to the Communist era in countries like the former Yugoslavia. Which as far as I know is unhistorical in two senses. Especially Yugoslavia was not that close to the Soviet Union, and the path to Communist dictatorships outside the USSR did not necessarily involve soviets (“councils”), did it? Or am I wrong?
It is a complex semantic formula, which also changed over time. Certainly, in early 20th century the Bolshevik revolution was seen as the hope by communists and socialists globally, and social-democrats were in retreat because in public perception Bolshevik (Marxist-Leninists, revolutionary socialists) managed to perform a qualitative change (the revolution) and social-democrats (followers of the evolutionary SPD model) didn’t.
But according to Marx teachings, the revolution was expected to happen globally because, as he claimed, it was not some human-induced happening but an outcome of “iron laws of history”, so a world revolution should logically follow the one in Russia. Of course, it didn’t, because Marx “iron laws” were nonsense. This is where Bolshevik started to modify the theory - first Lenin introduced NEP, and then Stalin reverted it claiming “socialism in one country”. Then there was the split with Trotskyism.
Bolshevik revolution certainly didn’t trigger the world revolution, but Soviet Union definitely tried - it massively invested in various revolutionary movements worldwide, from Asia and Africa to America. Most “socialist” countries there started with Soviet support, including China.
But then they started drifting away - China ended up almost at war with USSR, with its own Maoism, which after Mao’s death ended up as a hybrid system with largely capitalist economy but hardline authoritarian political system. North Korea ended up with its own Juche ideology etc.
So today the semantics are quite mixed up and correct usage of terms such as “communist”, “Communist”, “Soviet” etc requires pretty good knowledge of history, otherwise it can be confusing :)
@kravietz @maniamakash @tml
I sometimes use the term "former Eastern Bloc countries": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc
Which is I think correct and I find it useful — to indicate that the countries economic system transitioned away from what it was in times of the USSR.
And I use ex-Soviet sometimes when speaking about countries which were part of USSR formerly.
Neither can be applied to Yugoslavia though.
And yes, of course you can't say "post" about Russia itself — as it never transitioned away.
@kravietz @maniamakash @tml
There was a time of turbulence, but now it's back to the way it was before, I find the term "state capitalism" itself part of the newspeak that was common in USSR. We all know that these "private" companies aren't independent entities — go against the state and you might get exiled, jailed or even assassinated. There are no economic liberties and as we can clearly see now — no private property either (which never really existed in Russia).
@Hyolobrika
Richard Pipes (who is considered a major Russophobe by Russian authorities) has a theory about why Russia is this way and lack of private property is the core problem.
Sure — not only Russia had absolute monarchy, but it didn't last that long anywhere in Europe. In part, it was the reason why Russian Empire ceased to exist: these reforms were long overdue and it, among other things, was the reason for serious political crisis.
@Hyolobrika
In any case — this is why the Soviet "socialist" system fell into the right soil: people weren't used to owning anything, no such *tradition* — and now they didn't own a thing again, not much changed. Those who did — wealthy peasants "kulaks" and remnants of old noblety were declared enemies and were stripped of all property, either jailed or exiled (sounds familiar? 😅).
@m0xee @Hyolobrika @kravietz @tml That's a big ass non-sequitor
@m0xee @Hyolobrika @kravietz @tml Russia had a quasi-feudal system/had little developed private property -> russia was never socialist
@moffintosh
But I'm not trying to prove that Russia was never socialist, I simply don't care enough — again it only matters if you care about semantics. Essentially, it was all the same shit under different names: old brainwashing based on Orthodoxy into new "communist" ideology — which people had zero control over and rejecting which was forbidden
Tsarist serfdom into new soviet one, with propiska, when you couldn't travel freely. Rural communes to collective farms…
@Hyolobrika @kravietz @tml
@moffintosh
And lack of private property in both systems. Very few differences — that is why the transition in a lot of cases went butter-smooth.
And what we have now is the continuity of the same oppressive "tradition", they even wish they could reestablish the serfdom, which was eliminated in the later Soviet period (at last!): https://www.businessinsider.com/valery-zorkin-pro-serfdom-2014-9
@Hyolobrika @kravietz @tml
@moffintosh
This guy is the head of Constitutional Court, the equivalent of SCOTUS, and he has been occupying this position for decades.
You can say that one was socialist system and the other one is capitalist — but to me these terms are meaningless when applied to Russia: there was always the almighty state and there was you who never had any rights, including the right to have private property, you only have your rights as long as you comply — that was my point.
@Hyolobrika @kravietz @tml
@Hyolobrika
Sure, that might happen anywhere, but there is a world of difference between being apprehended with a pile of cash that you can't confirm the origin of (civil forfeiture), and being deprived of property that is legally yours and which is well documented just because you've been… declared extremist — that's what the case that I have linked earlier was about.
AFAIK civil forfeiture is still a legal procedure…
@Hyolobrika
If you can confirm the source of funds the property is to be returned to you — confirming the origin is normal practice even in finance, it helps fight corruption on international scale. In Russia, if you get apprehended in a car that you do not own (should be confirmed documentally) or aren't authorised to use by its legal owner — there is a very good chance there would be no procedure at all.
@kravietz @moffintosh @tml
@Hyolobrika
Driving a vehicle that isn't registered is outright dangerous — if road police stops you, you'd probably have to solve this with a bribe.
Eminent domain is a more interesting case — but I think we can all see the reasoning behind it: to prevent rent-seeking. There is a road to be built — but you don't want to sell your land because your expect the price to increase drastically.
@Hyolobrika
In the end you should still be compensated, but at property's market value or below it — but this shouldn't be the source of profit. Again, this has nothing to do being seized for "extremism" — completely different legal practice and I'm actually a strong proponent of it, because obviously I do not support rent-seeking.
Russia is a rather twisted special case even here: as the state isn't a social institution that exists for the benefit of the citizens…
@Hyolobrika
…but is a tool of those in power, there is a very popular corruption scheme — again, corruption is a rather meaningless term, usually it means that the state doesn't work like it's supposed to e.g. when it gets exploited for private gains, but in Russia it means that it works exactly as expected.
This is often used to reward officials: a member of his or her family buys land — usually for pennies…
@Hyolobrika
Then the value of the land in public registries grows significantly without any obvious reasons. Suddenly — there is a road to be built on this land — or some other public infrastructure and the owner has to be compensated generously.
The road? It might never get built 😂 There is no chance that a random nobody can do it — they would be stripped of all the rights immediately and might even get assassinated, this always gets approved by someone high up.
@Hyolobrika
And of course this never gets investigated, unless said official misbehaves at at later time and has to be punished — in this case yes, a big anti-corruption investigation. This is exactly how they are held in line: you go against the system — you lose everything, remember?
