The USSR lasted one full generation and just a little longer afterwords. It was also a much more radical set up of any current Nation State. Good call on Korea, even though it has been around less than the USSR.
The two things that you point out that I try to keep central to anything I try to think about with things like this:
1: We simply can’t predict
2: The side effects ar the interesting stuff
That said this is an emptry speculation thread. All I am saying is for the first time in my life (I am in my late 20’a) the established structure of society looks visably shaken, and actual factual radicalism seems to be in the air to at least some degree. That’s what I am finding interesting as of now.
It’s fortunate that the worst systems don’t seem to last as long as the others.
I supose it’s true, but maybe we can say that as a system gets more oppressive, that system also shortens its lifespan. Maybe we can’t, though empirical evidence seems to indicate that it is the case. However, there is nothing necessarily stopping an oppressive system from being replaced by another oppressive system.
What side effects did you have in mind?
Speculating is fun! It seems to me that more people are more willing to embrace social liberties than perhaps 50 years ago, but economic illiteracy is incredible, and that is a serious problem. I hope the internet changes that. But, not to be too much of a downer, if you look at American history over the last 200 years, you’ll observe all sorts of ups and downs regarding social and civil liberties. It’s almost like a cycle.
lol, specifically I was thinking of Fleming on the upside and the Assasination of the Arch Duke on the downside. And how nobody could predict such an event, and how so much of the more “interesting” world shaking events are blink of the eye radicalism that are fairly random / “dumb luck”.
This goes in with the unseen / uninteded consequences aspect of economics. As well as the Austrian check on knowledge and calculation I suppose.
As Lachmann says “The Future is unknowable though not unimaginable”
I hope the internet changes that.
Lay people actually read Hayek and Mises for fun now, and with great interest. I doubt that is as true of people like Stigler or Samuelson.
I know a few people get stuffy about this, but I think it is awesome that people who live in society actually take a serious sociological outlook (i.e. Austrianism) seriously. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is the most excited people have been about a serious look at liberty in a long time, if not ever.