#22 - Kamil Galeev

SPEAKER_1 (0:00)

Kamil, welcome to The Network State Podcast.

Kamil Galeev (0:02)

Thank you so much. Nice to see you.

SPEAKER_1 (0:03)

So you've got a very interesting voice on X and a voice on Substack. And I think we're both sort of, I don't know, politically idiosyncratic kind of people who like to sort of see things from a distance, and we've carried on discussion over the last few years and so on and so forth. Do you want to kind of introduce yourself for the audience for those people who don't know? You're kamilkazani.substack.com. I think you're, go ahead.

Kamil Galeev (0:28)

Yeah. So thank you so much for introduction. My name is Kamil Galeev, and I'm writing a pen name, Kamil Kazani. So-

SPEAKER_1 (0:36)

Okay, great. Five-five. I didn't know whether you wanted to say what your pen name was, but go ahead. Yeah.

Kamil Galeev (0:40)

Yeah. So originally I'm from Russia. I'm a Kazan Tatar. So that is where my nickname is coming from. And I'm primarily interested in the social institutions, in how they work, in their dynamics. And at this point, my primary focus of interest is revolution. So basically, when transformative social change happens, how and why? And I find it really interesting and promising, partially because in modern discourse, revolution and coup, they have a sort of like theological or religious meaning, a sort of like miracle just in social sphere. So what I find interesting and promising is just trying to parse it into a sort of like more mechanic sequence of events, just to see like how it is happening in real time. And that is what I'm primarily interested in right now.

SPEAKER_1 (1:31)

Okay, got it. And so the thing is you mentioned you're, you know, you have a Tatar background or Tatar background. Is it Tatar or Tatar? I should pronounce it. Okay. So I find that interesting and helpful because basically, you know, for example, when I'm understanding China, I will try to read things from a Chinese national's perspective or Chinese communist perspective, but also from a Chinese liberal perspective. And then I could kind of triangulate and figure out, you know, like views from that. And so I like reading your views and I kind of, you know, can contrast that from the Russian nationalist perspective or the Estonian perspective. And it's helpful because I think then you can sort of triangulate and figure things out. And there are a few of your posts over the years I found insightful. And so one that you did recently was a very good one, where you basically said something like, people think that what a revolution means is everybody's free and so and so. That's how it's always promised. But the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution were followed by extreme regimentation and a marked loss of freedom. Right. And maybe you can talk about that.

Kamil Galeev (2:41)

Yes, I think that is indeed somewhat counterintuitive and kind of may sound as a sort of heresy to most people. But I think it is pretty obvious because if you look at the countries where some sort of like great fundamental revolutions happened, that really shook the political order from the upside down. That could be Russia in 1917, or it could be France in 1789, or some could even say it's England in 1642

We would see the pattern, and the pattern is, in these countries, we have a capital, which is clearly a capital, and very pronounced. It's the largest city in the country. And basically, everyone hits on the Bay Street. So basically, one, and that is the first pattern we see is that revolutions really happened only in monocentric countries. So usually, what we see in countries like the US in the 19th century...

SPEAKER_1 (3:40)

There has to be a London, a Moscow, or a Paris, where there's like a clear capital, okay?

Kamil Galeev (3:45)

And in the US., in 1860s, there was nothing like that. I would even say that in China, in the early 20th century, one reason why Russian revolution, it basically happened in a blink of an eye, and in China, there was long and bloody civil war for decades, is that China just did not have this pronounced capital.

SPEAKER_1 (4:06)

It was preceded by the warlord era, right? So that almost was by definition, like the Chinese civil war was preceded by the warlord era. And so that was almost like definitionally decentralized, right?

Kamil Galeev (4:17)

One could say that originally when they overthrew monarchy, like the Sinhai revolution, that was the beginning of it. By basically, that is what's interesting, what happens. So in China, they overthrew monarchy, and the power just breaks down. And you immediately have lots of regimes and statelets. So it's not like someone else can see this power. And my understanding is that revolution is something very different. That is what happened in France or in Russia. It's where the pre-built omnipotence, it falls into other hands. But for that, you need to have it in the first place.