Maximalism in Post-Soviet Politics

One problem in politics in Soviet and post-Soviet space in its maximalism. This is a problem that equally affects both government and opposition alike. Both sides want complete and unconditional victory with no concessions to their opponents. This escalates any disagreement into an all-out conflict to the death or exile of one of the opponents. 

All that lead towards polarized and bitter society where group on top spends all its efforts on maintaining their grip on power and all others constantly plot taking them down. This constant Mexican stand off or battle royale keeps everyone on edge. All time, energy and resources are spent on infighting with nothing left to spend on improvement of life. All that lead to horrible living conditions, emigration, brain drain and leaves the countries in perpetual underdeveloped limbo between 1st and 3rd world.

It begun with Communists who were extremely maximalist in their agenda, offered no compromises. At first it allowed them to dispose the landlords and give land to peasants. However later this very same maximalism led towards countless purges. Millions have died, many of them were some of the best people in the country who died because people in power were afraid of losing their power to someone better. Eventually incompetent geriatrics run what was left of USSR into the ground.

Now most of the post-Soviet world repeats this mistake in their now independent parts of former USSR.

In countries of Eurasian Economic Union and to lesser extend the rest of CIS jails or kills any and all opposition who could reasonably challenge its grip on power. Government bureaucrats, police and connected fat cats hog up all the money in national budget, leaving everyone else in the country cold and dry. 

All this unites the entire nation against its government. It goes to such extremes where people vote for a President who literary killed onscreen the entire parliament because MPs refuse anti-corruption measures and intend to keep misusing budget funds to pay for their Maldives vocations.

I understand people's outrage. It is wrong when government officials cannot find money in the budget to afford medicine or fix literary anything, but somehow always have enough to afford mansions and Mercedes Maybach cars. That is enough to think that only extermination can fix them. 

However, getting rid of all politicians is equally maximalist agenda. It pushes bureaucrats and police to ally themselves with the current regime (dictator) and defend them like their life depends on it, because it almost literary does. This is the only reason why Putin or Lukashenka are still in power.

Government united against their own people and people equally united against their government is not a recipe for a prosperity or development. However, no one is willing to walk away from the confrontation because people in government have everything to lose and ordinary people have everything to gain. 

Bitter struggle for power between government and people lead to so called colored revolutions. They do not happen because of Soros or Americans. They happen because of how post-Soviet countries are.

In contrast to confrontational approach of post-soviet countries, politics in the West are a lot more collaborative and compromise seeking. Back in early 20th century where Bolsheviks overthrew the bourgeoisie, British Labour found compromise with the business. 

As much as business leaders dislike trade unions, they negotiate with them over working conditions and salaries. Both sides get something of value from these negotiations and both sides continue their work together. In the end business need workers to work various jobs for them. Workers too need somewhere to work. 

Delicate balance makes sure both sides have vested interest in continued collaboration. Give too much power to business and workers will lose the insensitive to do any actual work. People will quit or do Italian strike to avoid getting anything done. The result will be stagnant dysfunctional economy where nothing ever gets done, just like in USSR.

Give too much power to workers and unions and businesses will decide to close or sell. That too will lead towards stagnation, but due to lack of investment (influx of money).

Politics too are filled with compromises. In Western Liberal Democracy losing power does not mean losing wealth, exile, going to prison or even losing life. That is why politicians meet defeat with little more than upset. Life continues, there will be election again, meanwhile parliamentary salary will afford decent lifestyle just as before.

In post-Soviet state dictators cling to their offices like their lives depend on it and it often does. Most former post-soviet dictators live in exile and hope their host country will not enforce the arrest warrant, their successors in power issued for them. If that is what awaits you if you lose power, then you might as well order riot police to beat the protestors instead of conceding defeat. That act will of course further alienate people from you, and they will demand ever harsher punishment for your misuse of power against peaceful citizens, thus pushing you further into bunkering up. However, even if they cannot overthrow you then and there, people will continue to fight back secretly or from exile, and circle of hatred will continue.

You can do the western thing and reach a compromise where everyone gets enough value out of work to keep them motivated to keep going. Else you will keep chasing thieves, traitors, foreign agents and other such enemies of the state/people to no end, while actual work will stagnate and country further and further falling behind. 

People ultimately selfish creatures. They will always look after their own self-interest. They will get money for their Maldives vacation even if they have to destroy your entire motherland to do so. If that is the case, why not just pay them enough so that they can afford Maldives without any complex corrupt schemes. That way they will have enough energy and time to do something for the country as well.

To make people do something for a country or common prosperity there should be system that rewards them financially for their effort. Cheap propaganda or patriotic brainwashing will not make anyone smart enough to make a difference to actually put any effort into anything. Only idiots will work that way, and their idiotic efforts will lead to equally idiotic results.

Hopefully post-soviet states will manage to find their way out of this circle of hatred and constant animosity. 

Humanity evolved from apes because of their ability to build alliances and coalitions. One ape cannot take down a mammoth, but many can. However, insensitive are needed for many to work together. They will not do it for nothing, they will only do it if rewards are high enough. 

Just like pre-historic people, modern humanity created NATO and other organizations for the sake of common good. Whatever mammoth still oppose them, will not be likely to survive long. In the end it was Russian behavior that pushed eastern Europeans to join NATO. Russia shoot itself in a foot, making the same mistake, Poland-Lithuania did 200 years prior. Back then coalition of Russia, Prussia and Austria took Poland-Lithuania down. Modern Russia have forgotten its lessons from back then.

On Moralism and Ethics in Politics

 

To me anti-Trump hysteria was always baffling. Sure, you might oppose different politicians for various reasons, you might even lie to help your side win. However, things, Trump opponents say about him go much further than that. Listening to them make you think they are raving mad. Donald Trump is intelligent person who can think outside of the box and create original solutions. He is unconventional sure, but he is nor retarded, nor he is nazi or a dictator. Yet his numerous opponents will not shut up about how Donald Trump evil and what not. That raises question: why?

The answer is moral and ethics. Whenever some raving mad psychos condemn someone to be evil incarnate with self-righteous indignation, these two things are to blame. 

Trump is objectively better than Hillary Clinton or Kamalla Harris, but Trump is unethical and raving mad moralists yell on every corner how we should elect one of these unelectable women over the unethical dude who is objectively better. If you disagree, they call you deplorable and try to cancel you.

However, if voting for Hillary is the only ethical choice, they ethics themself are evil. They preclude you from voting for your best choice in favor of a bad one. Ethics is merely a tool to make people vote and act against their self-interest.

Who does ethics serve them. Your enemies: Russia, women, elderly. Evil people created ethics to justify their evil and unfair dealing. They steal from you, put a yoke on your neck and call it ethics.

In view of all that it is truly fortunate that in the US election reason and logic prevailed over ethics and moral. Good people have won. Raving mad moralists were defeated.

However, the very fact that moralists managed to get this close to power is alarming. We were dangerously close to moralistic dictatorship, where some sort of unelected, undemocratic and illiberal ethics committee gets to dictate everything. Dystopian worlds of 1984 or even Shinsekai Yori were close to being implemented in our own world and lives. 

Trump election in the US is not the only example of a similarly ethically charged contest. Yeltsin in Russia was a similar example. Yeltsin had to navigate dangerous times and fix the country and economy, broken by communists. It was a job someone like Putin would be completely incapable of. Yet despite Yeltsin managing it, raving mad commies kept calling him a bandit and demanded his resignation. Moralistic loonies even ally literal neo-Nazi to take Yeltsin down and failed. Even nowadays the moralists keep kicking this now dead lion, who was too manganous to squish them when he was in power.

Another, perhaps less dramatic example, was Ronald Reagan. Certain section of the left keeps blaming him for everything even nowadays. All that despite the fact that Reagan won his reelection with record high vote.

All that gives hope that really good politicians who represent silent majority and not the raving mad yelling ethics zealots can take power and make life better for us all.

However ethical and moralistic evil always lurks around the corner and plot to once again seize power and do evil, while calling it ethics. Their existence makes me fear for the future and liberty of our society. 

On Syria

 

Big event this month that I have not written about yet was Assad's regime collapse in Syria. The reason I did not write about this is because regime collapsed very abruptly as well as ambiguity of the actual control on the ground. 

HTS rebel group that took over had some ties with Al-Qaida, but not anymore. That still leaves the question of what they stand for or who supports them. Maybe it is Turkey, maybe it is Saudi Arabia, maybe they are free from everyone. In the past, they occasionally fought other rebels over various disagreements. Possibly they did not want to share power. At the same time, they also united with and absorbed many other rebel groups. Pragmatic inconsistency of their action reminds me of Lelouch and Black Knights. 

I wonder if HTS made some deals with some people in Assad circle or even with Russia itself to ger where they got. If they made any deals, then the question is what the terms were and will they honor them when in power or not. As of now it still remains to see what the new government will bring in.

To make matters more complicated. Closer to fall of Damascus other rebels spring into action as well and took control of parts of the country. It was unclear if they will work with HTS or not. Recently HTS announced that they reached some deal with them to integrate into new government. I think that addresses the so-called Southern Operation Room group, that controlled areas south of Damascus. 

Finally, there was issue of transitional government, but later news all confirms that HTS government of National Salvation from Idlib will be fulfilling this role.

That only leaves Turkish backed FSA in the north, SDF in northeast and a commando army on Jordan border supported by Americans who took Palmyra. 

The problem with FSA, is that it consists of rebels, who got on the bad side of HTS. Many of FSA fighters were likely expelled from Idlib by HTS. It is unlikely they will work with HTS voluntarily unless Turkey pressures them. 

Some claim that Turkey supports HTS just as much as FSA, if that is the case then Turks will likely use FSA to fight Kurds from SDF and then force them to accept the HTS as their new rulers. However, if Turkey is not HTS supporter, then FSA controlled north, and Turkish occupation will continue, and it will be hard for HTS to remove it.

American backed commando army is too small, not very battle ready and plagued with corruption. They will possibly intergrade with new regime, if they will get some assurances from HTS about their future policies. 

That leaves Kurds from SDF as the only major question. HTS and SDF might not be able to find ways of cooperation and thus a new round of civil war will ensure.

There are all the unknows that we know of. Let's hope that Syria has a bright future ahead of it.

I will finish on a good note. Assad's tyrannically regime is gone, people he unfairly imprisoned are now free. He no longer has capacity to use Zarin gas to mass murder. This is a great victory for liberty loving people everywhere in the world.

Assad himself went to dictators' favorite safe haven: Russia, where he will join Yanukovych, Abashidze and many others, who are hiding there from justice. Russia, country that created Assad and many others like him still stands and attempts to spread its evil across the globe. Hopefully some good rebel group will one day take Moscow and put an end to this evil at its core. As bad as Assad was, he is but Putin light. True evil remains and only gets worse.

Hopefully freedom will prevail.

Silent Change in Russian Government

A while back I was surprised when longtime ally and friend of Vladimir Putin, Dmitriy Medvedev was replaced as Prime Minister by Mikhail Mishustin. After some puzzlement I however concluded that it was probably a generational shift or a desire to find a better administrator compared to rather useless Medvedev. 

Looking back at it I started to think it was possibly an error. Development in Georgia and Kyrgyzstan made me rethink my original assessment. Putin as I know him, would not bully Bidzina Ivanishvili into rescinding democracy or force Kyrgyz politicians to release Sadir Japarov and make him President.

I read somewhere that Mishustin was backed by a "patriotic" radical oligarch Konstantin Malofeev and probably others, who supports radical ideas of Dugin, supported anti-Ukrainian rebels, tried to censor Internet and did other things.

With that in mind appointment of Mishustin could mean quiet but a significant shift in politics in Moscow towards real radicalism.

Putin was not a democrat or a liberal, but he was not a real radical either. Putin simply pander to the sentiments of Russian patriots with occasional token military action or anti-western speech. Putin needed patriots support to keep his power and used them as a tool against liberals such as Navalny. 

At the heart however Putin was simply a secret police kleptocrat, who wanted to enrich himself while keeping his grip on power. Any radical military action he took in the past, was only for the preservation of his power. Military action in Georgia and seizure of Crimea were all to fool patriots into thinking he is willing to go on a serious confrontation with the West and keep their support for his continued rule.

That might possibly have changed. Patriots somehow managed to pressure Putin into giving them real power. They now using this power to pursue their Eurasian agenda. Events in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and continued commitment to continue war in Ukraine all suggest this new reality.

All of that is bad for the world and us all. Token radicals from secret police are replaced with bona-fide lunatics who want to build an "empire" with violence and threats. 

If people like Mishustin or Malofeev actually believe in Dugin's mad ramble about Eurasia and Russian world, then they are dangerous on the whole new level compared to Putin. We should all prepare for a Second Cold War. CIA and other intelligence services should oppose and undermine them at every corner. They should be removed from power and deprived of any influence they have.

Sure, Putin still stays as President, but he is now older than 70 and possibly already a figurehead for Mishustin and Duginites (people who share Dugin views). He might as well be in the same role as Paul von Hindenburg was to Adolf Hitler.

That silent change in government in early 2020 would explain increased radicalization of Russian actions across the globe and continued war effort in Ukraine. Hopefully radical Duginites can be removed from power before they will actually create Nazi Russia.

On Recycling

 

Among ecologically conscious people idea of recycling is very popular. They believe that saves the planet and what not and want to recycle as much as possible. Some saw some examples of recycling in Europe and decided to copy without properly understanding how or even why it's done. 

The difference is that in Europe they do it not to save planet but to obtain raw materials for less than it costs to import them from overseas. They only collect certain select materials and they collect them individually without mixing them with any other materials. There are collecting points for paper, glass, metal and plastic. Each of these materials then goes to specialized company who knows what to do with it, they are not collected by garbage collectors. We have similar companies who collect metal scrap and even willing to pay you for the items you give them.

In contrast in Australia all "recyclable" material goes into the same recycle bin. It is then collected by garbage collectors and pass to people who then sort this recyclable rubbish into different categories for further recycling. Sorting rubbish is a very demeaning work. Not only that, but it also defeats the whole economic rationale for recycling by making it too expensive. People who sort rubbish have to be paid, thus adding to the final cost of recycled materials. The final price is too high to make recycling economical under this model as recycled materials are not cheaper than new ones.

Thus, we should do away from single recycling bin and rubbish truck recycling and instead transition towards individual material collection points, each managed by companies who can make economically viable use of the material they collect.

Dangers of Activistocracy

 

A while ago I wrote an article about dangers of Technocracy where scientists have full control over society. Later I also wrote why more moderate and liberal Techno liberalism is good compared to outright Technocracy.

However, dangers to democracy come in many forms. No matter what one group takes full control over society, it will be bad for everyone else. No matter what one group has unlimited power, it is always a tyranny.

In our current democracy various organized social activists have a disproportionally large influence on the society and politics. 

The louder certain groups express their views the more influence they get. Convinced in righteousness of their actions, such groups shout down anyone who disagrees with them, labelling them with some insulting words. Loud minority controls the narrative and society. Silent majority cannot do anything against it.

Sometimes such groups get money from various interest groups in order to boost their message and make it an ever-present brainwashing noise in the public discourse. Sometimes these donors are hostile foreign powers, such as China and Russia who want to destroy the Western Liberal world from within and sponsor the most destructive and insane political movement they can find.

To make matters worse, various social norms make certain opinions easier to express compared to others. Its socially easier to condemn Donald Trump than speak in favor of him. There are several other things that socially easy to defend such as families, seniors, women and businesses. In contrast unemployed, men, homeless or employees are unfairly maligned by the press, making it near impossible to speak in favor these people's interests.

Activistocracy got stronger and more prevalent in 2010s but it existed before as well. 

Before we had people who were willing to defend silent majority against the loud minority. Most famously Ronald Reagan, but also Bob Hawke and others. Both Reagan and Hawke kept getting re-elected with huge margins despite detractors calling them what not. Reagan managed to fight and defeat activistocracy and is a true hero of democracy.

Unfortunately, nowadays politicians are too narrow minded and too scared of Murdoch press as well as few select activist groups with undue high influence, such as Hillsong Church, climate change activists or business consul. All that devolved democracy into tyranny of these select groups. They are getting undue benefits and rewards at expense of everyone else in the society.

These certain activist groups are clearly anti-democratic and harmful for society and country. They exploit the society for their self-interest and actively destroy lives of many people outside of these groups. We need to fight against such groups and limit their influence on society.

In addition to dissolving the News Corp, serious audit should be made into Hillsong Church, climate activists and other organizations. If they take any Russian or Chinese money, they should be banned and their leaders arrested. 

News Corp possibly also guilty of taking Russian money, that is something Putin will likely do to control the editorial policy in Murdoch press. 

Finally, business consul unlikely takes any money from external sources, but they represent interests of a small minority that are at odds with much larger society. They too have to be curtailed in their influence. 

How to Dissolve Belgium

 

Talks about Flemish independence and consequentially Belgian dissolution is nothing new. Pro-independence parties consistently win majorities in Flanders. At the same time negotiations to form federal government take more and more time and increasingly have to include pretty much every single anti-independence party from both left and right to have a majority and make it work somehow. However, such a broad compromise government cannot achieve much, leaving country in never ending impasse. All the while debts keep growing and nothing is getting done.

However, dissolution of Belgium would rise several important issues that has to be addressed somehow. Even if Flanders secede or unite with Netherlands, what is going to happen with Wallonia, Brussels and that small German speaking region. Obviously, it is better to address them before rather than after the dissolution.

Brussels

While issue of Flanders and Wallonia mostly concerns only local residents, the Brussels is not so simple. Brussels is a de-facto capital of European Union and as such its continued functioning is important for every member of the European Union. 

As European Union ever grows larger and more powerful, Brussels too keeps growing bigger and bigger. Outer suburbs of the capital already reached out of its designated capital region into the surrounding Flemish Brabant and now border Wallon Brabant as well. 

To make sure Brussels can continue to grow and fulfil its role as European capital it needs space. Thus, in the event of Belgian dissolution it needs much more territory than its designated capital territory provides it. 

To that end Brussels should be united together with all or most of Brabant province, both Flemish and Wallon Brabants. That will give Brussels enough room to grow and function as a city state and a European capital. Actual borders can be adjusted to include or exclude other important areas, for example a FN Herstal arms factory in Liege Province. To keep border with Germany and Luxembourg even the whole Liege province can be made part of Brussels city state or turned into a separate nation. 

Greater Brussels city state should continue to be bi-lingual or maybe even include other languages of the EU as official, particularly large ones such as English and German. The name of this state can be either Brussels, Brabant, or even European Capital State. It should assume legal continuity from original Belgium, possibly shared with European Union as whole. It can be its own sovereign state or even a pan European Union condominium, where sovereignty for the area is ultimately vested in European Union itself. 

European Union sovereignty over the Greater Brussels arrangement can strengthen European Union and make it much more empowered on international stage. Much like with the US federal government's District of Columbia, it will give EU a territory with a complete federal control, not shared with any member states. It will also allow European Union to have its own army by taking over the Belgian one.

Flanders

Some in Netherlands propose a union between Flanders and Netherlands. Popularity of this idea is low in Flanders itself, however. Nonetheless this arrangement has several advantages over the independent Flanders.

To begin with it will allow Flanders to continue its membership in European Union without need to re-apply or work out some complex arrangements. It will also save Flanders trouble of creating its own Armed force. Finally, it will shield Flanders from hostile actors in Russia and China who would try to undermine the new state, by promoting pro-Russian puppet candidates.

One might argue that such arrangement will not change much for Flanders. However, the root issue with Flemish independence movement was unwillingness ot subsidize much more impoverished Wallonia. Union with Netherlands does solve just that, as Netherlands is one of the wealthiest states in Europe, thus Flanders would not be the net donor of the union but rather net beneficiary. The second issue was language and here there is no problems at all. Both Netherlands and Flanders speak Dutch, unlike the French speaking Wallonia. In general, there is much more cultural similarity between the two. Finally name Flanders has poor reputation due to being the same as that of certain character from popular American sitcom The Simpsons. A country with such name might struggle to get foreign investment. 

In case of the union with Netherlands, Flanders may keep all or most of their powers as a regional autonomy. That will make transition even smoother. Actual powers of the Flemish government can even be increased, even though 

Benefits of the Union with Netherlands so outweighs the outright independence, that perhaps this option should be the only alternative to continuation of Belgium with no option for outright independence.

Alternatively, Flanders can indeed become fully independent member of the EU and NATO. Some provisional arrangements have to be implemented to make sure the transition is a smooth one and there is no disruption to European Union or NATO. Security would be particularly important issue here as countries like Russia could try to use transition to damage European security.

Wallonia

Wallonia is by far the easiest to solve part of Belgium. Wallons do not want independence; however, some want to unite with France. Many Wallons dislike even increasing presence of Dutch language and want to promote French language as the only one in the country. 

Because of that union with France is a simple solution that serves their aspirations. Sure, Wallonia has huge public dept, but France is not a county that will pass on territorial expansion, even if it has to shoulder the debts of its new territorial possessions, Wallonia's population is but a fraction of French so annexation will not impact French finances in any significant way.

German Speaking Area

Small German speaking area in the far east of Belgium can be given to Germany. That will somewhat offset growth of France at expense of Wallonia.

Conclusion

Despite some opposition to Belgian dissolution, support for this option is strong and ever growing. It is much better to arrange a cohesive transition plan and carry it through than wait until Flanders just declares unilateral independence and plunges not only Belgium but the whole EU into chaos and instability.

Conservative Complacency

I often criticize various progressive and left-wing causes. Woke is insane and provide never-ending reasons to oppose it.

However right wing is full of their own problems and the biggest of them is self-righteousness. 

Just a while ago on X someone posted a simple question about income inequality, and it spewed a shitstorm of rightwing shit in comments. Half of them just downright said that it is wrong or immortal to criticize inequality or complain about it. Others added how most people "deserve to be poor". In the opinion of the modern right wingers that is capitalism.

However actual capitalism was different. In 19th century capitalists invented joint stock companies. They offered people shares of their business in exchange for their financial contribution. Seeing benefit for themselves people bought these shares and using all these money big companies were created. These companies later transformed the US into a superpower we know today.

In fact, even medieval Kings and so-called robber barons had to offer followers material incentives if they wanted to get anything done.

In contrast all modern self-proclaimed "capitalists" can do nothing but call equality wrong, free stuff immoral and minimum wage destructive. Unlike their 19th century predecessors, these "conservatives" have nothing but empty rhetoric full of self-righteousness. 

However, if you cannot offer people anything but excuses on why "they deserve to be poor" it's only fair that they turn to someone who can offer them actual money. Someone like Bernie Sanders or Andrew Yang. 

A very capitalist principle of the auction. Your business impotence and right-wing drivel was outbid by Andrew Yang's UBI. You have only yourself to blame. Turns out capitalism was uncompetitive and lost people to UBI.

In contrast UBI is actually better represent spirit of original capitalism. Shareholders have to be paid dividents and UBI is a dividend on USA or <Insert Your Nation Here> Inc.

How Fascism Works

Fascism works because fascist leaders promise to make life of citizens dominant ethnicity of a given country much better by taking land from their neighbors. Land is valuable thing, so some people are inclined to support it in hope of getting more land for themselves or their children.

To top this up there is an emotional appeal towards perceived national greatness. We will be better, grander and stronger and foreigners will both fear and respect us instead of despising and taking advantage of us as their currently do.

Finally, there is revanchism for our lands currently controlled by former occupiers. You can nearly always find or made up some documents that certain parts of neighboring countries were originally ours but was unfairly taken away from us by foreign invaders. Now its only fair to take these lands back.

All that make fascism work.

What does not work is the fact that to achieve any of that you almost always need to start wars. People do not like wars. Foreign countries are particularly alarmed as they see war in the air and unlike the invader, they have nothing to gain, only to lose so they band against the fascism to take it down together.