From Reform to Ruin in the USSR
cogitations.coTo summarize: the post is phrased in terms of an existing controversy about whether Gorbachev was "powerless" in the face of the bureaucracy (and how much he feared a coup), but concludes he wasn't. Instead, the author thinks Gorbachev was quite powerful, but focused on the wrong things, specifically on political reform instead of economic reform. Critical economic reforms like price reform was abandoned, and at the same time state enterprise reform caused fiscal problems that left the center weak. At the same time, political reform ended up empowering regions ("republics" meaning nationalities), which ended up wrestling fiscal control of the center. Eventually (this part is uncontroversial) the RSFSR ended up with more power than the center and dissolved the USSR.
Can't recommend 'Collapse: The Fall of the Soviet Union' by Vladislav M Zubok enough. An absolute page-turner that makes this super clear.
Gorbatsjov listened to American advisors. The Chinese were watching and never made the same mistakes.
Opening up the economy so that Western piggus can take over everything and corrupt the nation with their DMARKS and Dollars? What were they thinking...
It wasn't a "nation" though. It was an empire that could only be held together by force and oppression.
But isn't China the same? Tibet and Xinjiang are both nations with their own language and culture. I guess it wouldn’t be long until they became independent again if it weren’t for force and oppression.
Not really. The entire Tibet Autonomous Region has less than 4 million people living in it. Xinjiang is 26 million which is of course a lot but still insignificant compared to China's total population (and almost half the people living there are ethnically Chinese anyway).
Those regions might be politically important to China but demographically and economically (besides any potential natural resources) they hardly matter.
Han make up 91% of the population of China, in the USSR Russians were barely above 50%.
I mean China is a nation state that engages in some imperialism. The USSR was an empire first and foremost.
>nations with their own language and culture
There are few countries where there is a single language and culture. Just looking at Western Europe, there is Basques in Spain, Bretons in France, Welsh/Scottish in the UK, Frisians in Netherlands, Lombards in Italy, Walloons in Belgium etc etc.
>it weren’t for force and oppression.
Nah. That's USAID propaganda.
It's important to note that in the marxist/sociological tradition (doesn't really matter how actually marxist they are these days), "nation" refers to basically ethnicity. China itself claims to host 56 nations. In this context "nationalism" is considered a threat to the state and to the people. Don't confuse thus with pro-state patriotism, of course, which is alive and thriving.
The soviet union was the same way. Even member states mostly represented multiple nations, which often crossed member state borders.
Here's the relevant work from Stalin: "Marxism and the National Question": https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913...
I'm pretty skeptical myself that nationalism was the thing that tore the soviet union apart. The most ethnically diverse areas (notably, georgia and central asia) generally benefitted the most from attachment to the soviet union. Surely here in the US we are less bound together by shared culture than the soviets ever were. If the soviets were an empire of nations, we are a prison-ship of them.
It was Eltsin who listened to American advisors, not Gorbachev.
This is a problem with discontent nations. If you offer freedom before redressing grievances, they will choose to leave.
How many of their grievances are freedom related though?.
Could be economic freedom, religious, intellectual, social etc.
Also, I'd argue giving your citizens freedom of movement is critical if you're going to implement necessary but drastic economic reforms, it gives the bourgeois, who often end up leading revolutions in despotic states, an option to exit stage left instead of putting on camo and moving to the jungle with a bunch o guns.
Education not controlled by politicians is dangerous to authoritarian regimes.
The current rhetoric from JD Vance about tertiary education is part of the usual script of tinpot despots, sadly.
>>How many of their grievances are freedom related though?
If people think they are better off economically as a region they will leave. This might look like a economic problem, but its actually a political problem. It literally deals with the fact that who gets to collect and keep taxes, and later plan how to spend that money.
>>Education not controlled by politicians is dangerous to authoritarian regimes.
Its always a mistake to assume that people don't know if conditions elsewhere are better, or there own conditions are worse.
Just because people put up with bad governments, it doesn't mean they will not rebel later. Really it all depends on the situation, and time.
I wonder how this plays out in the future in the US as differences in tax collected versus returned tax dollars continue.
The post mentions parallels to the Qing Dynasty, but I want to elaborate on that a little more: whenever an authoritarian system which derives its authority from something other than nationalism (Imperial authority for the Qing, Communist ideology and the Party for the USSR) tries to modernize and liberalize, the danger is that this awakens slumbering nationalism which tears the system apart faster than it can safely adapt.
This is exactly what happened to the Qing: the Chinese population never really liked the Qing, but when it was a mostly hands-off distant authority, they lived with it. But when the Qing attempted to become a modern country with high state capacity, this woke up slumbering Han nationalism which proceeded to tear down the dynasty.
And that's what happened in the USSR too: early Soviet leaders correctly guessed that Russian nationalism had to be suppressed in the Soviet system, or else with the majority of the population and territory, Russia would end up dominating the rest of the country. And to their credit, they mostly made good on this: Russia didn't have too much of an outsized impact on or benefit from the Soviet economy, and representation from other states in the political elite was pretty good. But as soon as Gorbachev opened things up, Russian nationalism asserted itself and wanted to throw off the "unfair treatment", and the USSR immediately fell apart.
There are contemporary examples today, too: I argue this same pattern is what has been happening in Burma. When the junta had total control, they were able to force the patchwork of ethnic groups to mostly get along; as soon as a little democracy got introduced, the Buddhist majority started genociding everyone else.
If you want to open up an autocracy, you have to pay very close attention to whatever forces it has long been suppressing.
I wonder, did that nationalism need so little time to get such a powerful force? I mean, Gorbachev was not that long in office, so maybe it was there all along just barely kept in check.
The nationalism was always there. At first, it was strongly suppressed. Stalin in 1941 found it expedient to suppress it less (to try to motivate the population to fight Nazi invaders). Brezhnev in the 1970s found it expedient to suppress it even less (to try to motivate the population to not succumb to Western cultural influences). Then Gorbachev pulled out the control rods even further and it exploded.
Same reason the Warsaw pact and communism in all East/Central European countries collapsed at the same time. It could only survive as long as there was a credible threat of Soviet invasion.
Same applied to almost all of the national "republics". Most people were only willing along with it due to fear and hopelessness (since any type of civil disobedience would be violently suppressed).
I see a parallel with the breakup of Yugoslavia as well. In spite of his authoritarianism, Tito was a popular, legitimate war hero, and Yugoslavia had notably more personal freedom than the typical communist regime. But there wasn't anyone who could truly replace him; once he was gone, the old nationalist tensions that had always bubbled under the surface boiled over, and everything flew apart.
Is this the same dynamic that keep a sizable Christian population in the middle east during Ottoman times but their population's decimation in recent times?
The Soviet Union began to collapse the moment it abandoned Lenin’s NEP. If they had reintroduced it in the 1960s, after recovering from World War II, they could have quickly caught up with the West—perhaps even surpassed it. In many ways, China is the successful version of the USSR.
China had limitless almost free labor. Soviet Union had a deficit of labor by late 1960s already, and again by late 1970s - in 1974 they did a temporary fix by liberating the peasants which helped for a few years until those ran out, too. Chinese way could NOT work in the Soviet Union, they never had that alternative. The window of opportunity when they had sufficient labor reserves to try it was way too short - some years in mid-1960s - before then, they still suffered from consequences of WWII losses - and even if tried then, that would've been a botched effort just for not having enough time. Chinese didn't get almost anything out of their economic opening for the first ~15 years remember. China remained dirt poor through mid-1990s.
Their only opportunity to truly fix things was to accept Marshall plan, and thus finish with Communism and introduce private properly and democracy, after WWII. But personal ambitions of the leadership prevented that.
A huge part of China's success stems from the fact that Nixon opened up U.S. markets to China, along with U.S. investment capital. It was a key strategic decision made by the United States to counter Soviet influence in Asia. China's reforms were merely an adaptation to the new opportunities that arose from this shift.
Another important factor was China's significantly larger population compared to the Soviet Union, combined with notably lower labor costs. All these factors eventually propelled the country to great prosperity. Without them, I think China today wouldn't look much different from any other East Asian country.
The Soviets simply didn't have such opportunities. Leaving aside the fact that Western countries never offered them a similar deal, Soviet labor simply couldn't match the industrial productivity enabled by the cheap workforce of East Asian countries.
The USSR had vast land and abundant natural resources, but its population density was relatively low. Additionally, it already possessed advanced technologies and a well-developed industrial base. From the U.S. perspective, such a country looked more like a potential (and actual) competitor rather than just another member of the Western economic system.
I'm not a big fan of a planned economy. And I believe that the lack of social freedoms and democratic institutions, typical of Western countries, was a major factor in the Soviet collapse. But regardless of the decisions and reforms Soviet authorities could have made after World War II, I think the country was doomed either way.
The Soviet Union simply didn't have a large enough population to effectively develop such an enormous landmass. After WWII, significant male losses and the effects of the second demographic transition led to continuous population decline. The only reasonable course of action would have been to relinquish part of its global influence and territory, which it eventually did — but perhaps too late. However, the authorities of any country rarely want to give up power, and the Soviets were no exception.
As for turning points, I don't think it was the NEP. More likely, the Communist (October) Revolution itself was the crucial historical moment. The Russian Empire was a relatively promising state, evolving in the right direction. It was gradually building democratic institutions and transitioning to a liberal economy. Its industrial development was progressing similarly to other European countries — perhaps with some lag, but still moving forward.
Perhaps the real turning point in Russian history was when radicals, driven by controversial economic and social ideas, inherited a wealthy country and used its potential for large-scale social experiments.
>After WWII, significant male losses and the effects of the second demographic transition led to continuous population decline.
Wait, but this simply isnt true. USSR population grew continiusly until the 90iez.
The was the "war echo" in this growth, but it wasn't declining.
You cant really beat 3 year maternity leave and free kindergarder from the age of 3.
All that really worked and beinf a single mother was normalized too, because of distorted gender ratio.
What really worked was that people were not invested in jobs. It was dead end, you dont care, dont have ambitions and try to go home as soon as possible. The 3 year maternity leave stayed after communisms ended, free kindergarten stayed. But capitalism made the work feel less of "sleepy dead end" for everyone.
Otherwise said, people stopped having kids when economic opportunities opened up.
I actually lived through the whole thing and I don't agree with your take. The hard drop in 90ies has more to do with the soviet system collapsing and taking away the floor than with capitalism opening up the top. It was a time of struggle where some more adaptable people ripped the benefits, but for everybody else it was a very tough time. Instead of working 9 to 5 and going home a lot of people had to work 2 or three jobs, drastically change their lifestyle and take the burden of care for their parents because the state basically defaulted on their pensions.
If you think that people didn't have ambitions, it's also not true. You could still climb the ladder inside the system, it's just the monetary reward was capped at having middle class-level comfort instead of being unbelievably rich. You could always be a head of something or go by the party route to have more nice things or have friends to bring stuff from the west too.
Childbirth did not went up all that much even as economic conditions got better. Largest driver of children in communism were really people checked out of public and professional life, retreating to hobbies and family.
Your options to climb the ladder inside the system were severely limited, especially if you was young. Communism and working in communism was sleepy and having ambitions was negative - just about the only way to use ambitions was to be political, denounce who you have to denounce and do the dirty work for the state.
> You could always be a head of something or go by the party route to have more nice things or have friends to bring stuff from the west too.
Of course that implies comfort with a lot of dirt and amorality. Yep, some people did that. Everybody knew what being party meant and some of these people are still the sleaziest politicians out there. Not everyone had stomach for that.
Plus, you could not do this if you was from the wrong family.
> A huge part of China's success stems from the fact that Nixon opened up U.S. markets to China, along with U.S. investment capital.
Nixon arrived a full year after Gough Whitlam established Australian-Chinese trade which prompted Henry Kissinger to take a secret visit to China to negotiate the terms for Nixon’s mission.
> develop such an enormous landmass
Why would that matter? Australia and Canada are doing reasonably well regardless of the overwhelming majority of their territories being empty "wasteland" (economically).
If anything relatively low population coupled with huge amounts of natural resources per capita is one of the best positions to be in.
>relinquish part of its global influence and territory
By in and large their relinquished the more highly populated areas not the empty ones.
It works as long as a country primarily spends its income on internal development. Today's Russia is a relatively prosperous country with high living standards, at least in big cities. Perhaps these standards are even higher than in some EU countries. And they are certainly higher than at any point in Soviet history.
However, to a large extent, this is the result of cutting expenditures on projecting Soviet influence abroad. The Soviet Union had enormous spending on subsidizing friendly regimes and their economies around the world, as well as maintaining a military presence. The same applies to some former Soviet republics that the USSR had to subsidize for decades.
I think we are observing similar processes in the United States today. They are attempting to cut spending and perhaps even reduce their military presence simply because they cannot afford it in the long term without sacrificing their own prosperity.
>Gorbachev’s reforms began with the aim of resuscitating the Soviet economy. But instead they brought ruin, destroying the Soviet economy along with Soviet state capacity. This did not occur because Gorbachev was “helpless” and trapped by entrenched interests, but rather because he proved to be a well-intentioned reformer with great power that was used in a reckless manner.
The collapse of the Soviet Union as it was was inevitable. Gorbachev recognized it and tried to do something about it. Given the gargantuan challenge, Gorbachev's odds of success were not great to begin with. At least he was wise enough to shepherd its demise peacefully. In any case, the world without the Soviet Union is undoubtedly a better place.
Gorbachev said that one of the things that shocked and demoralized him was when he visited Houston and took a trip to one of the typical supermarkets, a locally owned one not part of any nationwide chain or anything.
When he saw that average Americans were enjoying consumer choices well beyond anything the highest echelons in the USSR could attain, he was never quite the same after that.
I believe you are thinking about Yeltsin (unless both visited a Texas supermarket and were surprised to discover how well stocked it was).
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/trending...
Are you sure that was Gorbachev and not Yeltsin? There's even a famous photo of the latter at an American store.
> In any case, the world without the Soviet Union is undoubtedly a better place.
Is it, though? Putin's Russia is no better than the Soviet Union - in some ways worse. It's essentially a mafia state run by one thug. One could imagine a different scenario where Gorbachev would have been able to land the plane in a bit more of a controlled fashion and stayed around to transition to something that would look more like a European democracy - but of course, things got way too chaotic for him to stay on.
For those who lived in the occupied areas like Poland, it certainly is.
> in a bit more of a controlled fashion
The guiding intellectual principle in the US at the time w.r.t. the economy of the ex-USSR was "You can't cross a canyon in two leaps". This was what passed for intelligent thought.
Imagine if the US hadn't gone in and come up with 'voucher privatization' which essentially created the oligarchs (and which in my mind seems to have been designed so that investment groups could take over but the mechanism got co-opted by the oligarchs).
That happened in all other countries too. Ukraine had oligarchs, Chezchia and Romania have them. Its just russian oligarchs got hold on infinite money glitch which is oil production and the country overcorrected by going full dictatorship
It transitioned into a demicracy a-okay, the problem was -- russians never had any kind of democracy and it quickly descended into oligarchy, from which they overcorrected to dictatorship quite willingly.
Every other ussr and soviet-aligned country got it going somehow.
> into a demicracy a-okay
Well considering that Yeltsin had to order the army to shell the Russian parliament less than 2 years after the USSR was dissolved that somewhat arguable.
Nobody cares about democracy though. People want jobs, supermarkets, houses and cars.
The Americans actually understood this which is why they focused on the economy when they helped Japan and Europe to rebuild after the war.
> a well-intentioned reformer with great power that was used in a reckless manner
The road to hell...
Eastern Europe has almost twice the population of Russia.
Would anyone here care to assert that more people would be better off today if the Wall had not fallen?
Eastern Europe is not one state, just as the European Union is not a state. The consequences are visible: the way forward needs endless negotiations and gets endless adjustments, stuff gets implemented slowly and chaotic, so really, the comparison cannot hold.
Quite a bit of it was in the USSR or under their thumb.
I’ve always wondered how the world would look like without the Bolshevik revolution
My grandfather fought the Bolsheviks as part in the Allied Intervention in the Russian Civil War. In 1919 he was on a gunboat in the Caspian Sea. He kept a diary of that time. It is now in the Imperial War Museum.
Yeah, Lenin's complete takeover of the socialist/communist movement was not a given. Kerensky was much more of a moderate (and IIRC was running the Provisional Government from about July 1917 till about September, up until that point the Bolsheviks were in the minority). Had he succeeded and Lenin been unsuccessful in taking over the revolution it seems possible that Russia now might look more like a northern European democracy. Lenin wasn't the brightest and he wasn't the best orator, but he did have the work ethic - he essentially outworked his rivals and took advantage of every opportunity to make them look weak.
> seems possible that Russia now might look more like a northern European
Probably not. Kerensky and most other moderates were still reactionary imperialists by modern standards and wanted to keep the empire together.
And the divergence between Russia and Norther European countries occurred hundreds of years prior to the revolution. Overwhelming majority of Russians were very poor and illiterate peasants. It would be near impossible to build a progressive/democratic society in such a place without massive economic and social changes (which wouldn't just happened on their own).
> he essentially outworked
He was also an extreme liar and a hypocrite. The Bolsheviks did and said anything to get into power and then reneged on most of their promises. Main issues at the time were land reform and ending the war, the Bolsheviks pretty much just stole the Socialist land reform plan and pretended they'll implement it when they get into power (which likely resulted in much less direct opposition to them in the early stages than would have been the case otherwise). Yet they obviously nationalized most of the land as soon as they secured their position. They also tried invading Poland/Ukraine/Baltics/etc. as soon as the German army withdrew.
As soon as all hope of ever achieving Communism was lost - and that was clear by XXVth Party congress in 1976 when it got all but replaced with so-called "advanced Socialism" - Soviet Union was done: keeping the system of thorough socioeconomic absurdity and repression in all spheres of life was impossible without giving people a greater goal to strive for. Without that, the question of "what are we suffering for" had no answer.
In addition, the elites realised how poorly they were treated compared not just to the leading, but even to the capitalist nations of similar per capita GDP - that is, mediocre ones - and wanted to change that. Seriously, speaking of economic grievances, no one had more to complain about but the Soviet elites. Those who in America, had Learjets and beachside villas, had to make do with bugged apartments and black Volgas in the Soviet Union and they rightly saw it as unfair.
Both problems could be "fixed" with 1937-style repression IN ADDITION to 1933-style famine (because Soviet Union depended on food imports and the West won't give them in case of a new Purge), but Gorby had no balls for that sort of thing in 1987, and thank God he didn't.
Simply put, there was no way to fool too many people, increasingly well-educated and capable of critical thinking, for too long a time. Communism ended because it's time was up.
>Those who in America, had Learjets and beachside villas, had to make do with bugged apartments and black Volgas in the Soviet Union and they rightly saw it as unfair.
The Soviet Union endured a most destructive war, and then had economic warfare waged against it by its former allies. Kind of hard to compete under such circumstances.
I'm not speaking about overall economic level. I'm speaking about inequality. Which was low in the Soviet Union and top 1% - which was also the most educated class and had the best access to information too - could not miss the fact that they were badly underpaid compared to their capitalist counterparts, even from poor capitalist countries. There was just not enough inequality.
And also, their lives were full of risks compared to capitalists who could at worst bankrupt their companies and walk away to their beachfront villas, Soviet elites that misstepped, ended up in Gulag.
Elites in the end, were the most intrinsically anti-Soviet part of the Soviet society: they had a lot to gain from the collapse of the System, and they indeed, did gain a lot when it happened.
One thing that Politburo could do to extend the life of the Soviet Union was to be softer on the elites by letting them freer access to foreign currency, facilitate their freedom of travel, owning foreign property and investments, and so on. They couldn't escape after all - they had no skills to make good money in the West.
Incidentally, a strongly held view by the CCP is that Gorbachev "lost" the USSR due to his lack of consolidated political power and it's a "mistake" that they are most desperate to avoid, and explains in part Xi's rise to unquestioned supreme leader with complete control within the party and over the provinces. (An interesting case is point is how they stripped down Bo Xilai, the CCP Secretary for Chongqing once he became too popular with his constituents--now serving life in prison.) To borrow from Islam, "there is no God but the CCP, and Xi is his prophet."
But Putin has complete power of Russia similar to Xi has in China and has had for a couple of decades at least.
That's because Yeltsin set the groundwork for him, in his 93' coup. Where he, as president, dramatically overstepped his constitutional authority, the Russian parliament started making impeachment noises, so he ordered to army to seize it.
The mid-level commanders that carried out his orders were rewarded with wealth and power. The ones that didn't got purged.
Russia came out of that coup and constitutional crisis with all power consolidated in the office of the President.
And you would never guess what happened next!
Hmm, it's almost like allowing a president to consolidate too much power in the Executive Branch can have terrible consequences. If only there was a lesson we could learn from this ...
Yes, it's almost like allowing a president to be above the law, or to appropriate power that is contrary to legislature and the constitution is bad for democracy.
Take a look at provisional paragraphs of Ukrainian constitution. They are at the end and are quite interesting
Right. He and Xi adopted similar approaches. In China this took the form of "rooting out corruption" (sound familiar?), where, coincidentally, all those who were "corrupt" ended up being those with the power to challenge Xi.
"If this view is correct, one lesson for those seeking to understand reforms in China today is that the leader, his competence, and his perceptions of how to enact reform can, at times, prove even more important than the underlying realities of bureaucratic politics or structural issues."
Short version:
"Deng Xiaoping thought Mikhail Gorbachev was an idiot"
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-31/mikhail-gorbachev-met...
Living through the end years of USSR and beginnings of centrifugal coming apart of everything was pretty crazy. As a child seeing necrologies for Brezhnev, then Andropov, then Chernenko on TV with somber music and black ribbons, I remember thinking - woah, why are they dying. Gorbachev was a breath of fresh air, and he did as soft of a landing for that disastrous country as anyone could have wished for. The aftermath was still a disaster, especially considering what is happening now. The worst kinds of people came to power, the grabbiest, least compassionate, just general scum. They completely destroyed what Russia could have been, stole everything they could and set the country back on the terrible cycle of poverty, war and bloodshed.
That seems a pretty standard aftermath to any revolution, with few exceptions. No matter how well intentioned the revolutionaries are, it is the most ruthless who end up seizing power.
I think the US pushed 'Voucher privatization' creating a system (in my mind intended to empower US investment takeovers) co-opted by horrible people turning them into Oligarchs is very specific and not standard at all.
Chernobyl contributed to the collapse. It caused people to panic and it exposed the weaknesses of the system and created a breach of the Iron Curtain.
It completely ruined any hope glasnost had to succeed.
In pop history the influence of Chernobyl is wildly exaggerated.
In the complex set of events that lead to the collapse, Chernobyl is only a footnote.
Fear of Chernobyl catastrophe was the major reason to demand free speech. Free speech made it clear that USSR is far behind western countries, it opposes. Which created demand to catchup with West or/and to dismantle inefficient soviet regime (AKA «Go West»[1] or «Light from the West»).
USSR had a lot of issues, and surprisingly, the same issues are plaguing the USA today:
Some people who believe in conspiracy theories, that Gorbachev was a Western agent, are cheering what Agent Krasnov is doing by shrinking and disintegrating the US empire1. Geriatric leadership of 80+ y.o. dudes clinging to power 2. Loose fiscal policy and huge deficit. Soviets were subsidizing communist regimes around the world and spending everything on military build-up and arms race 3. Bloated and inefficient bureacracy that became its own class (Nomenklatura) 4. Inefficient economy 5. Military humiliation (Afghanistan) and industrial catastrophe (Chernobyl) that costs a lot in $ and regime reputationRelatively, the US economy is quite efficient compared to the most of the world. Maybe not as efficient as before, but still better than Europe.
History doesn't repeat but it does rhyme... it rhymes with "Afghanistan"
In the same timeline Mustafa Nayem, a son of Afghani emigree is a person who started the Euromaidan revolution and became an MP after its success.
So, by any objective metric, #2, #3, and #4 have nothing in common between the two nations, and by the late 2010s, Afghanistan was a historic footnote that everyone stopped giving a shit about.
The US is incredibly successful at exporting about half of the pain from its fiscal policy to other nations, (given that the dollar is the world's reserve currency), not the other way around. It's economy is incredibly productive, and its bureaucracy is roughly the same size to that of other developed nations.
What it does have is a tidal wave of propaganda, sponsored by a small group of robber barons and oligarchs people who would benefit from destroying that bureaucracy. Which somehow convinced ~49.8% of the country that the richest man in the world somehow has their interests at heart.
> Which somehow convinced ~49.8% of the country that the richest man in the world somehow has their interests at heart.
Well...when you consider the competition you get what you get. In this case the richest man in the world positioned to be the "savior" from the previous regime.
> its bureaucracy is roughly the same size to that of other developed nations.
Slashing the bureaucracy is not the full story. Basically, most Americans have umbrage against the previous regime. So the enemy of my enemy is my friend...or at least useful.
> Basically, most Americans have umbrage against the previous regime.
80% of all of features in Word are useless to me, but for each user, it's a different 80%.
The same with government. There isn't a person alive that doesn't have issue with some part of it, but start going down the list, and you'll very quickly discover why so many parts of it are important, and why you shouldn't delegate picking and choosing to an unelected billionaire narcissist with no skin in the game, no consequences for bad behavior, and most of all, no legal authority to make any of those arbitrary choices.