4 ms·

I wouldn't say it "just happened" to survive against communism, that was because Edward Bernays [1] provided the framework to produce modern propaganda (PR) to

I wouldn't say it "just happened" to survive against communism, that was because Edward Bernays [1] provided the framework to produce modern propaganda (PR) to the west while the communists were still producing fairly simple and naive versions. I'd say the race right now is between new methods of distraction and keeping the collapsing system going just a bit longer with increasingly insane economic tricks. I'm not sure a breaking point is inevitable, there might just be a reasonably smooth slide into neo-feudalism. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_(book)

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
You don't think that being a superior economic system had anything to do with it? You don't think that being a more humane social/political system had anything to do with it? You think it was just superior propaganda? Seriously? Gorbachev noted that the USSR had a military that could have gone toe-to-toe with the US, but they couldn't provide toothpaste for their people. Everyone else noted the lines to buy basic necessities. Communism simply didn't work very well, economically. That wasn't propaganda; that was simply obvious comparison of the experience of living on different sides of the Iron Curtain. Then there was the whole "freedom of speech" thing in the west and the whole "gulag" thing in the east. That was real. The difference was real. (Yes, I know the US seems to be rapidly eroding actual freedom, but it was a real thing at the time, not merely propaganda.)
- freshhawk 10y ago
  I wasn't completely clear, but: yes, obviously the preferences of the public were a big deal, as was the over-ambition of central planning without the technological or theoretical ability to do it well. But you can look at that as part of the same system, getting the people on your side, both with actual benefits and imagined ones was a large part of the superiority of the western system.
- gonvaled 10y ago
  Your superior capitalism, the one that won against comunism, doesn't exist. Even the 1% capitalism we have now doesn't exist. Capitalism is a “winner takes all“ system, and will converge to a “1 per thousand“ or “1 per million“ system. What comunism ideologues were fighting was not a particular palatable form of capitalism (softened by external pressure) but the ultimate state of the system. Thanks to comunism collapse, we will happily enjoy the culmination of this superior system.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > You don't think that being a superior economic system had anything to do with it? Not much -- the initial economic conditions at the beginning of the Cold War pretty much dictated how, even if the systems had been equal, a spending war that didn't erupt into a full-scale armed conflict had to end, unless one side capitulated in fear of a full-scale armed conflict. That's not to say that the economic system of the developed West wasn't a better one than that of the Soviet Union and its satellites, or that their political systems weren't better, from a moral standpoint. Just that that's not why they won; the victory was overdetermined by other factors.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

You don't think that being a superior economic system had anything to do with it? You don't think that being a more humane social/political system had anything to do with it? You think it was just superior propaganda? Seriously? Gorbachev noted that the USSR had a military that could have gone toe-to-toe with the US, but they couldn't provide toothpaste for their people. Everyone else noted the lines to buy basic necessities. Communism simply didn't work very well, economically. That wasn't propaganda; that was simply obvious comparison of the experience of living on different sides of the Iron Curtain. Then there was the whole "freedom of speech" thing in the west and the whole "gulag" thing in the east. That was real. The difference was real. (Yes, I know the US seems to be rapidly eroding actual freedom, but it was a real thing at the time, not merely propaganda.)

freshhawk 10y ago
I wasn't completely clear, but: yes, obviously the preferences of the public were a big deal, as was the over-ambition of central planning without the technological or theoretical ability to do it well. But you can look at that as part of the same system, getting the people on your side, both with actual benefits and imagined ones was a large part of the superiority of the western system.
gonvaled 10y ago
Your superior capitalism, the one that won against comunism, doesn't exist. Even the 1% capitalism we have now doesn't exist. Capitalism is a “winner takes all“ system, and will converge to a “1 per thousand“ or “1 per million“ system. What comunism ideologues were fighting was not a particular palatable form of capitalism (softened by external pressure) but the ultimate state of the system. Thanks to comunism collapse, we will happily enjoy the culmination of this superior system.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> You don't think that being a superior economic system had anything to do with it? Not much -- the initial economic conditions at the beginning of the Cold War pretty much dictated how, even if the systems had been equal, a spending war that didn't erupt into a full-scale armed conflict had to end, unless one side capitulated in fear of a full-scale armed conflict. That's not to say that the economic system of the developed West wasn't a better one than that of the Soviet Union and its satellites, or that their political systems weren't better, from a moral standpoint. Just that that's not why they won; the victory was overdetermined by other factors.