4 ms·

Most of the powerful corporations in 1982 no longer exist or are much smaller because there is great turnover in corporate power. Governments don't lose power u

by marbro 2y ago

Most of the powerful corporations in 1982 no longer exist or are much smaller because there is great turnover in corporate power. Governments don't lose power unless they lose a war, a rare event today that was common 100 years ago.

dredmorbius 2y ago
The USSR would like to enter the chat, but is unable to for existential reasons unrelated to combat. (Also much of the rest of the Warsaw Pact, and others around the world.)
- kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
  > reasons unrelated to combat. Afghanistan is very much a reason why they no longer exist.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    One of many modest-sized if not necessarily small cuts. But Afghanistan did not, say, defeat and invade the Soviet Union. It out-endured them within its own territory. Much as has happened to the US several times, with resulting embarrassment but not regime change. Military spending on the part of the US, falling global oil prices, multiple internal contradictions and failures, revolt within Warsaw Pact states, and growing internal dissent were far more significant contributors to the ultimate fall. Britannica and World Atlas give similar accounts: <https://www.britannica.com/story/why-did-the-soviet-union-collapse https://www.britannica.com/story/why-did-the-soviet-union-co...> <https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/10-reasons-for-the-collapse-of-the-soviet-union.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/10-reasons-for-the-colla...>
  - YouWhy 2y ago
    I have very little sympathy towards the Soviet empire, but the war remained on the Afghan side of the border, and was of a limited scope for most of its duration; construing the Soviet defeat into a direct cause of regime collapse is an extraordinary claim warranting extraordinary proof. For example, one wouldn't claim that the de-facto American loss of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is directly affecting the stability of the American regime, would they? Coming back to the Soviets, I would concur to a claim that the Afghan War was a failed national project, alongside the Chernobyl tragedy and the ecological disaster of the Aral Sea. The narrative I think proper here is first and foremost is the ordinary Soviet citizen's loss of trust in the Soviet way as such, rather than the specific fear of a foreign invasion.
mmooss 2y ago
Especially look at military contractors, which consolidated significantly since the early 1990s, an intentional change desired by the Department of Defense. > Governments don't lose power unless they lose a war, a rare event today that was common 100 years ago. A good point, but of course they do lose power with every election - that's the point, a peaceful transition of power.
whymeogod 2y ago
"governments" may not, but the political parties running them certainly do. And changes in political parties can change what services government delivers. Heck, you don't even need a change in parties for that to happen.

by marbro 2y ago

dredmorbius 2y ago

The USSR would like to enter the chat, but is unable to for existential reasons unrelated to combat. (Also much of the rest of the Warsaw Pact, and others around the world.)

kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
> reasons unrelated to combat. Afghanistan is very much a reason why they no longer exist.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  One of many modest-sized if not necessarily small cuts. But Afghanistan did not, say, defeat and invade the Soviet Union. It out-endured them within its own territory. Much as has happened to the US several times, with resulting embarrassment but not regime change. Military spending on the part of the US, falling global oil prices, multiple internal contradictions and failures, revolt within Warsaw Pact states, and growing internal dissent were far more significant contributors to the ultimate fall. Britannica and World Atlas give similar accounts: <https://www.britannica.com/story/why-did-the-soviet-union-collapse https://www.britannica.com/story/why-did-the-soviet-union-co...> <https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/10-reasons-for-the-collapse-of-the-soviet-union.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/10-reasons-for-the-colla...>
- YouWhy 2y ago
  I have very little sympathy towards the Soviet empire, but the war remained on the Afghan side of the border, and was of a limited scope for most of its duration; construing the Soviet defeat into a direct cause of regime collapse is an extraordinary claim warranting extraordinary proof. For example, one wouldn't claim that the de-facto American loss of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is directly affecting the stability of the American regime, would they? Coming back to the Soviets, I would concur to a claim that the Afghan War was a failed national project, alongside the Chernobyl tragedy and the ecological disaster of the Aral Sea. The narrative I think proper here is first and foremost is the ordinary Soviet citizen's loss of trust in the Soviet way as such, rather than the specific fear of a foreign invasion.

mmooss 2y ago

Especially look at military contractors, which consolidated significantly since the early 1990s, an intentional change desired by the Department of Defense. > Governments don't lose power unless they lose a war, a rare event today that was common 100 years ago. A good point, but of course they do lose power with every election - that's the point, a peaceful transition of power.

whymeogod 2y ago

"governments" may not, but the political parties running them certainly do. And changes in political parties can change what services government delivers. Heck, you don't even need a change in parties for that to happen.