There’s something relevant to this kind of story in Debray’s book. He warns that the bourgeois will often claim that revolutionaries are winning. It’s quite a successful technique because it takes the wind out the enemies of imperialism. People start to believe that they’ve already won, that the bourgeois are going to fade away. Then the bourgeoisie pounces. Not sure how applicable it is…
Not sure this is applicable here at all to be honest since Russian decisions makers are certainly not listening to anything the west says. This is clearly aimed at people in the west, and is likely designed to start shaping opinion in favor of ending the war. The IMF report came out within days of a RAND report saying that prolonged war is not in US interest, and that isn’t a coincidence.
Isn’t it applicable? We’ve been hearing for years about Russia “rising up from the knees” and how USA/Europe are rotting down and will collapse into irrelevancy aaaany day now. The former became something of a meme even. And for what? It seems that every day we’re getting news about yet another something that we thought was completely local production that in fact relied on important. Sure, Europe is going to have a harder time living the same life as before, with the costs for electricity and other resources rising. But the bourgeoisie in the USA doesn’t appear to be bothered. They’re growing richer. Frankly so does the bourgeoisie elsewhere. I’m not sure what they could pull off that would help them as much as Bretton Woods had, but I wouldn’t put it past them to make something up
In Debray (Revolution in the Revolution? Armed Struggle and Political Struggle in Latin America), there’s a hint that it’s not necessarily a bluff (although that is a factor); it’s also that revolutionaries get their hopes up too soon when they hear that their actions are working, which leads them to slow down, etc, which gives away the advantage. I realise I didn’t quite say this in my first comment; I’m only seeing the subtlety after your and Yogthos’ criticisms.
There’s something relevant to this kind of story in Debray’s book. He warns that the bourgeois will often claim that revolutionaries are winning. It’s quite a successful technique because it takes the wind out the enemies of imperialism. People start to believe that they’ve already won, that the bourgeois are going to fade away. Then the bourgeoisie pounces. Not sure how applicable it is…
Not sure this is applicable here at all to be honest since Russian decisions makers are certainly not listening to anything the west says. This is clearly aimed at people in the west, and is likely designed to start shaping opinion in favor of ending the war. The IMF report came out within days of a RAND report saying that prolonged war is not in US interest, and that isn’t a coincidence.
That makes sense. Debray was talking about a very different context, with spontaneous revolutionaries and guerrillas fighting capitalists in LatAm.
Isn’t it applicable? We’ve been hearing for years about Russia “rising up from the knees” and how USA/Europe are rotting down and will collapse into irrelevancy aaaany day now. The former became something of a meme even. And for what? It seems that every day we’re getting news about yet another something that we thought was completely local production that in fact relied on important. Sure, Europe is going to have a harder time living the same life as before, with the costs for electricity and other resources rising. But the bourgeoisie in the USA doesn’t appear to be bothered. They’re growing richer. Frankly so does the bourgeoisie elsewhere. I’m not sure what they could pull off that would help them as much as Bretton Woods had, but I wouldn’t put it past them to make something up
deleted by creator
Good points.
In Debray (Revolution in the Revolution? Armed Struggle and Political Struggle in Latin America), there’s a hint that it’s not necessarily a bluff (although that is a factor); it’s also that revolutionaries get their hopes up too soon when they hear that their actions are working, which leads them to slow down, etc, which gives away the advantage. I realise I didn’t quite say this in my first comment; I’m only seeing the subtlety after your and Yogthos’ criticisms.