4 ms·

A few years ago I read a good book on the collapse of the USSR (can't remember the title, too lazy to go back and find it right now). One of the major factors t

A few years ago I read a good book on the collapse of the USSR (can't remember the title, too lazy to go back and find it right now). One of the major factors that the author identified was glasnost ("transparency"), which I'm old enough to remember being talked about on the news at the time. Basically, his thesis was that it was the transparency, after a generation of buildup of really nasty official secrets, that ultimately brought down the communist regime. Once it was clear that everything people thought was probably happening was actually happening, and worse, the whole thing just disintegrated from the bottom up. The regime lost all legitimacy, and the death blow was basically self-inflicted since it was the regime itself that started to open up. I often wonder about that in the US context. What if a lot of crazy stuff that many people suspect has gone on actually turns out to be true, or what if it's even worse than some of the tinfoil hatters think, and we suddenly start finding out about it all. I figured it would be some type of Wikileaks or Snowden-type reveal that would do us in, if it happened. But we may actually do ourselves in with an American glasnost that, just like the Russian one of the 80's, is done by well-meaning people in our own government.

Eric_WVGG 10y ago
I was a kid at the time and mostly heard “glasnost” in the context of “open-ness”, mostly regarding opening the culture and the borders and a McDonald’s in Red Square. Interesting to learn that the double-meaning translates so, uh, clearly.
snowwrestler 10y ago
The difference between the USSR in the 1990s and the U.S. today is that the U.S. has cultural and governmental norms that accept and manage change. I know that's not necessarily going to be universally accepted here on HN, where it's somewhat popular to assert that all politicians are the same, all the strings are pulled by a small group of global elites, etc. We have contentious national elections frequently, and tolerate a high level of conflict and dissent in public discourse. This is not to say that everything is objective and equitable--it's not. But each viewpoint has a lot more leeway to pursue its own goals than in the USSR in the 1990s. In terms of secret crazy stuff that turned out to be true, that does happen. The Snowden leaks are a recent example.
- jonstokes 10y ago
  This makes sense, and I think (and hope) it's probably right.
adventured 10y ago
> What if a lot of crazy stuff that many people suspect has gone on actually turns out to be true, or what if it's even worse than some of the tinfoil hatters think, and we suddenly start finding out about it all. What if that premise is mostly or entirely wrong. It's absurd, and entirely empty speculation at best. Extreme edge case scenarios very rarely actually occur. Most of the world has a very large vested interest in the US remaining exactly where it is: most of the world has gotten radically wealthier and more free during the reign of the US superpower, global poverty and inequality has plunged rapidly during that time.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > global poverty and inequality has plunged rapidly during that time Can you show that this is the case (for some measure of inequality), and that the US is responsible?
s_q_b 10y ago
There is a theory that Perestroika and Glasnost were responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union, but to me that seems unlikely. The Soviet Union was bound to collapse, because it's mandate, by definition, was limitless expansion of communism. When the government could no longer coordinate production, Perestroika and Glasnost were last-ditch efforts to bring the Soviet Union more in line with Western norms. Unfortunately, since their empire was built on force, the loosening of the reigns only encouraged irredentist movements, until one by one the Soviet republics fell like dominos. Don't get me wrong. It is a major mainstream theory that the liberalizing reforms unleashed too much information on the Soviet public all at once, causing a massive reaction. I do believe Glasnost and Perestroika were the cause of the collapse, but it wasn't was because of the volume of information released. Rather, it was the increased freedoms to organize and communicate outside the strictures of the state. Free speech and freedom of assembly are anathema to dictatorship. Once that occurred, it was only a matter of time before their vassal states rose up. The United States isn't quite as vulnerable to that type of collapse. You have to remember the Soviet style of occupation was absolutely brutal. The murder of anyone considered to be part of the elite class, including everyone from factory owners to the university professors, constant surveillance, and indiscriminate use of force were the first steps upon the Soviets gaining control of a country. The result was subjugated nations and people, not new provinces and citizens. The United States doesn't have that style of federation. Its provinces are held together by a common national identity in voluntary assembly, not a single nation presiding over others by raw force. I do also believe that if the United States' TS archives were ever opened, many things suspected by conspiracy theorists would be proved correct, even more would be proven false, and there would be countless other plots no one even suspected.
- njloof 10y ago
  > The United States doesn't have that style of federation. Its provinces are held together by a common national identity in voluntary assembly, not a single nation presiding over others by raw force. Don't say that within earshot of the American South.
  - travmatt 10y ago
    After the civil war the southern states voluntarily rejoined the union
DenisM 10y ago
You're underestimating the fact that the Soviet economy was essentially bankrupt. The high oil prices hiked up by the oil embargo became addictive, but having subsequently collapsed caused huge withdrawal syndrome. Agriculture was underperforming for decades to a staggering degree, in the last few years the food was rationed and there was international food aid sent to the country.

Eric_WVGG 10y ago

I was a kid at the time and mostly heard “glasnost” in the context of “open-ness”, mostly regarding opening the culture and the borders and a McDonald’s in Red Square. Interesting to learn that the double-meaning translates so, uh, clearly.

snowwrestler 10y ago

The difference between the USSR in the 1990s and the U.S. today is that the U.S. has cultural and governmental norms that accept and manage change. I know that's not necessarily going to be universally accepted here on HN, where it's somewhat popular to assert that all politicians are the same, all the strings are pulled by a small group of global elites, etc. We have contentious national elections frequently, and tolerate a high level of conflict and dissent in public discourse. This is not to say that everything is objective and equitable--it's not. But each viewpoint has a lot more leeway to pursue its own goals than in the USSR in the 1990s. In terms of secret crazy stuff that turned out to be true, that does happen. The Snowden leaks are a recent example.

jonstokes 10y ago
This makes sense, and I think (and hope) it's probably right.

adventured 10y ago

> What if a lot of crazy stuff that many people suspect has gone on actually turns out to be true, or what if it's even worse than some of the tinfoil hatters think, and we suddenly start finding out about it all. What if that premise is mostly or entirely wrong. It's absurd, and entirely empty speculation at best. Extreme edge case scenarios very rarely actually occur. Most of the world has a very large vested interest in the US remaining exactly where it is: most of the world has gotten radically wealthier and more free during the reign of the US superpower, global poverty and inequality has plunged rapidly during that time.

Chris2048 10y ago
> global poverty and inequality has plunged rapidly during that time Can you show that this is the case (for some measure of inequality), and that the US is responsible?

s_q_b 10y ago

There is a theory that Perestroika and Glasnost were responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union, but to me that seems unlikely. The Soviet Union was bound to collapse, because it's mandate, by definition, was limitless expansion of communism. When the government could no longer coordinate production, Perestroika and Glasnost were last-ditch efforts to bring the Soviet Union more in line with Western norms. Unfortunately, since their empire was built on force, the loosening of the reigns only encouraged irredentist movements, until one by one the Soviet republics fell like dominos. Don't get me wrong. It is a major mainstream theory that the liberalizing reforms unleashed too much information on the Soviet public all at once, causing a massive reaction. I do believe Glasnost and Perestroika were the cause of the collapse, but it wasn't was because of the volume of information released. Rather, it was the increased freedoms to organize and communicate outside the strictures of the state. Free speech and freedom of assembly are anathema to dictatorship. Once that occurred, it was only a matter of time before their vassal states rose up. The United States isn't quite as vulnerable to that type of collapse. You have to remember the Soviet style of occupation was absolutely brutal. The murder of anyone considered to be part of the elite class, including everyone from factory owners to the university professors, constant surveillance, and indiscriminate use of force were the first steps upon the Soviets gaining control of a country. The result was subjugated nations and people, not new provinces and citizens. The United States doesn't have that style of federation. Its provinces are held together by a common national identity in voluntary assembly, not a single nation presiding over others by raw force. I do also believe that if the United States' TS archives were ever opened, many things suspected by conspiracy theorists would be proved correct, even more would be proven false, and there would be countless other plots no one even suspected.

njloof 10y ago
> The United States doesn't have that style of federation. Its provinces are held together by a common national identity in voluntary assembly, not a single nation presiding over others by raw force. Don't say that within earshot of the American South.
- travmatt 10y ago
  After the civil war the southern states voluntarily rejoined the union

DenisM 10y ago

You're underestimating the fact that the Soviet economy was essentially bankrupt. The high oil prices hiked up by the oil embargo became addictive, but having subsequently collapsed caused huge withdrawal syndrome. Agriculture was underperforming for decades to a staggering degree, in the last few years the food was rationed and there was international food aid sent to the country.