In terms of “patriotic” or “nationalistic” media in Russia, it is all sourced and created by historians and military people. As a result, patriotic discourse in Russia is all based around discussions of military strategy, armaments and never-ending squabbling about the true history of the 20th century. This is because these topics are these people’s day jobs. It’s their bread and butter. They can’t NOT bring it up. These aren’t professional politicians - they’re hobbyists when it comes to politics and try to shoehorn their favorite pet topics into their political projects.
My eyes really lit up at the words "peasant solidarity". My writings on the subject may be of some interest - The Peasants Shall Inherit the Earth (http://karlnorth.com/?p=1084) and The Quality of Peasant Life: a Scenario for Survival (http://karlnorth.com/?p=1270), in which is argued that the peasantry (still over half the population of the planet at last count) may have the best chance of surviving the demise of industrial civilization due to massive depletion of energy and other critical raw materials.
Also, did you know that Marx, in his later years, finally despairing that the miniscule Russian working class could ever be the basis of a successful socialist revolution, suggested that the Russian mir might be a better foundation for a revolution in such a vast nation as Russia. According to the Encyclopedia Britanica:
"mir, in Russian history, a self-governing community of peasant households that elected its own officials and controlled local forests, fisheries, hunting grounds, and vacant lands. To make taxes imposed on its members more equitable, the mir assumed communal control of the community's arable land and periodically redistributed it among the households, according to their sizes (from 1720)."
That last quote sums it up very well. We'd all do good if we saw ourselves as working-class Americans vs the false and useless political identities we're troughed into. Our problems require moving outside the bounds of democracy which has become an utter sham on the national level.
1) Russia has a long lasting leader cycle. Because of that there's no real pressure to talk about political platforms.
2) In a sense Russia is way ahead of you, and in a very real sort of realism which is not afraid to point a finger at the root of all Russian problems. This is why Putin's language is increasingly morphing to include "Christian talk" with a heavy emphasis on "getting back to the family".
"Domostroy" is at the very core of Russian identity. To beat around the bush with all the finger pointing, is an endless dance where they talk about shooting horses.
The problem with policy is that it's dull even when it's interesting. The real magic happens when a raft of self-evidently excellent policies are connected to an inspiring ideology - ideally one that isn't just a pale echo of 20C nostalgia.
The other problem with policy is that the better the policy, the more it is ruled out a priori by the regime's own ideology. e.g. "Raise wages by restricting immigration? Racist!"
The fact that the regime's ideology reliably produces terrible policy is itself grist for a revolutionary/restorationist ideology.
My eyes really lit up at the words "peasant solidarity". My writings on the subject may be of some interest - The Peasants Shall Inherit the Earth (http://karlnorth.com/?p=1084) and The Quality of Peasant Life: a Scenario for Survival (http://karlnorth.com/?p=1270), in which is argued that the peasantry (still over half the population of the planet at last count) may have the best chance of surviving the demise of industrial civilization due to massive depletion of energy and other critical raw materials.
Also, did you know that Marx, in his later years, finally despairing that the miniscule Russian working class could ever be the basis of a successful socialist revolution, suggested that the Russian mir might be a better foundation for a revolution in such a vast nation as Russia. According to the Encyclopedia Britanica:
"mir, in Russian history, a self-governing community of peasant households that elected its own officials and controlled local forests, fisheries, hunting grounds, and vacant lands. To make taxes imposed on its members more equitable, the mir assumed communal control of the community's arable land and periodically redistributed it among the households, according to their sizes (from 1720)."
That last quote sums it up very well. We'd all do good if we saw ourselves as working-class Americans vs the false and useless political identities we're troughed into. Our problems require moving outside the bounds of democracy which has become an utter sham on the national level.
1) Russia has a long lasting leader cycle. Because of that there's no real pressure to talk about political platforms.
2) In a sense Russia is way ahead of you, and in a very real sort of realism which is not afraid to point a finger at the root of all Russian problems. This is why Putin's language is increasingly morphing to include "Christian talk" with a heavy emphasis on "getting back to the family".
"Domostroy" is at the very core of Russian identity. To beat around the bush with all the finger pointing, is an endless dance where they talk about shooting horses.
The problem with policy is that it's dull even when it's interesting. The real magic happens when a raft of self-evidently excellent policies are connected to an inspiring ideology - ideally one that isn't just a pale echo of 20C nostalgia.
The other problem with policy is that the better the policy, the more it is ruled out a priori by the regime's own ideology. e.g. "Raise wages by restricting immigration? Racist!"
The fact that the regime's ideology reliably produces terrible policy is itself grist for a revolutionary/restorationist ideology.