3 ms·

Point is, mafia can't think long term, let alone care about population. All it can think of is self profit and grabbing anything it can get hold of. It can't pr

by shmerl 5y ago

Point is, mafia can't think long term, let alone care about population. All it can think of is self profit and grabbing anything it can get hold of. It can't produce, it can only steal from others. It leaves desert after there is nothing more to steal. So this isn't about political science. It's about psychology of a common criminal. That's Putin's level of thinking. Even if some there could think differently, he basically wiped out any kind of alternative ways of doing things in practice.

zozbot234 5y ago
My point is that all polities start out as crude mafias. It's nothing special about Russia itself. And even an actual mafia can be expected to seek "proper" legitimacy for the very purpose of being enabled to think in the longer term.
- shmerl 5y ago
  In theory that could be the case. Not in practice as long as Putin runs it.
publicola1990 5y ago
Why is that so? Mafia can hire good analysts and theorists, and try to formulate policies that lead to their long term survival.
- shmerl 5y ago
  Smarter dictator will have someone around who isn't scared to tell them they are doing something stupid. Putin isn't smart enough for that. He lives in a bubble where everyone can only praise him. So it's a typical example of Dunning–Kruger effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
  - publicola1990 5y ago
    Why do we have to assume that? He may have a brilliant think tank obscured from public gaze. I think it would be naive to assume that he didn't have a close inner circle precisely for that.
    - shmerl 5y ago
      That's simply how I understand it given a lot of public information. The best example of that is how Putin squandered all the inherited technological potential of USSR. Instead of investing in technology he simply wants to rob everything he can get hold of. His attitude to progress resembles Stalin's dialogue with Vavilov about genetics. So no matter what inner circle he has, it can't be called anything but stupid. Feel free to do your own analysis though :)
      - zozbot234 5y ago
        > The best example of that is how Putin squandered all the inherited technological potential of USSR. My rationalizing model of that is a sort of Trump-like populist move. He might want to be seen as visibly anti-West, because that's what gives him the best support base - it might just be what some in Russia expect, or want to see. This is of course disappointing to some extent from a Western POV, but not to be altogether unexpected given the lack of support Russia got from the West back in the 1990s (while hit by a deep economic crisis). Those chickens might now be coming home to roost, and if so it would be quite hard to wish for better attitudes towards the West today.
        bvrmn 5y ago
        It's funny you've mentioned chickens. My favorite food at 90s was frozen chicken and chicken sausages from USA. We called it Bush legs. There was no any other affordable meat at that time.
      - publicola1990 5y ago
        Assuming stupidity/incompetence of an adversory is usually not a solid analysis, if one does that and then the adversory suddenly starts pulling smart moves, one could be at serious disadvantage. In general though, I do feel much of western analysis on Russia etc is too simplifying, and naive. Cultural and historical context are so vastly different that, I think certainly more nuance is required.

by shmerl 5y ago

zozbot234 5y ago

My point is that all polities start out as crude mafias. It's nothing special about Russia itself. And even an actual mafia can be expected to seek "proper" legitimacy for the very purpose of being enabled to think in the longer term.

shmerl 5y ago
In theory that could be the case. Not in practice as long as Putin runs it.

publicola1990 5y ago

Why is that so? Mafia can hire good analysts and theorists, and try to formulate policies that lead to their long term survival.

shmerl 5y ago
Smarter dictator will have someone around who isn't scared to tell them they are doing something stupid. Putin isn't smart enough for that. He lives in a bubble where everyone can only praise him. So it's a typical example of Dunning–Kruger effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
- publicola1990 5y ago
  Why do we have to assume that? He may have a brilliant think tank obscured from public gaze. I think it would be naive to assume that he didn't have a close inner circle precisely for that.
  - shmerl 5y ago
    That's simply how I understand it given a lot of public information. The best example of that is how Putin squandered all the inherited technological potential of USSR. Instead of investing in technology he simply wants to rob everything he can get hold of. His attitude to progress resembles Stalin's dialogue with Vavilov about genetics. So no matter what inner circle he has, it can't be called anything but stupid. Feel free to do your own analysis though :)
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      > The best example of that is how Putin squandered all the inherited technological potential of USSR. My rationalizing model of that is a sort of Trump-like populist move. He might want to be seen as visibly anti-West, because that's what gives him the best support base - it might just be what some in Russia expect, or want to see. This is of course disappointing to some extent from a Western POV, but not to be altogether unexpected given the lack of support Russia got from the West back in the 1990s (while hit by a deep economic crisis). Those chickens might now be coming home to roost, and if so it would be quite hard to wish for better attitudes towards the West today.
      - bvrmn 5y ago
        It's funny you've mentioned chickens. My favorite food at 90s was frozen chicken and chicken sausages from USA. We called it Bush legs. There was no any other affordable meat at that time.
    - publicola1990 5y ago
      Assuming stupidity/incompetence of an adversory is usually not a solid analysis, if one does that and then the adversory suddenly starts pulling smart moves, one could be at serious disadvantage. In general though, I do feel much of western analysis on Russia etc is too simplifying, and naive. Cultural and historical context are so vastly different that, I think certainly more nuance is required.